Citation network
Blakely Vs. Washington
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 2004
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Blakely V. WashingtonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Blakely V. WashingtonSearch
-
a) This case requires the Court to apply the rule of Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
s sentence is not analogous to those upheld in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 79 , and Williams v. NewSearch
-
Connor, J., joined. Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Blakely V. WashingtonSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1632 Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr., Petitioner V. WashingtonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
seriousness level v. forSearch
-
State v. GoreSearch
-
certiorari. 540 U. S. 965 (2003). II This case requires us to apply the rule we expressed in Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
In Ring v. ArizonaSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
finding an aggravator). The State defends the sentence by drawing an analogy to those we upheld in McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 79 (1986), and Williams v. NewSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
the Washington Supreme Court in other cases has upheld exceptional sentences 15 times the standard maximum. See State v. OxborrowSearch
-
State v. BranchSearch
-
s determinate-sentencing regime in State v. GouldSearch
-
the median. Regrettably, Apprendi has prevented full development of this line of jurisprudence. Blakely v. WashingtonSearch
-
O'Connor, J., Dissenting Blakely V. WashingtonSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
if it is for an aggravated offense, likely would be barred altogether by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
see also State v. PawlingSearch
-
formal pedigree. It would be more consistent with our decisions leading up to Apprendi , see Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
Witte v. UnitedSearch
-
guidelines in cases currently pending on direct appeal is in jeopardy. And, despite the fact that we hold in Schriro v. SummerlinSearch
-
and state guidelines since Apprendi was decided in 2000 arguably remain open to collateral attack. See Teague v. LaneSearch
-
s reasoning. The Guidelines have the force of law, see Stinson v. UnitedSearch
-
dissent. Footnote 1 The paucity of empirical evidence regarding the impact of extending Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
today, only one court had ever applied Apprendi to invalidate application of a guidelines scheme. Compare State v. GouldSearch
-
Kan. 394, 23 P. 3d 801 (2001), with, e.g. , United States v. GoodineSearch
-
United States v. LucianoSearch
-
United States v. DeSummaSearch
-
United States v. KinterSearch
-
United States v. RandleSearch
-
United States v. HeltonSearch
-
United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
United States v. PiggieSearch
-
United States v. ToliverSearch
-
United States v. Mendez-ZamoraSearch
-
United States v. FieldsSearch
-
State v. DiltsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial