 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Warmbold v. State9/27/2005
ximum penalty allowed by statute. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. at 2362-63. Because Warmbold's upward departure did not exceed the 360-month statutory maximum, his sentence did not run afoul of Ring. It was not until Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004), that the Supreme Court held that the statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes was not the maximum penalty allowed by statute but the presumptive sentence in a system with mandatory sentencing guidelines.
Blakely was decided after Warmbold's sentence became final, however, and is not subject to retroactive application on collateral review. State v. Houston, 689 N.W.2d 556, 559-60 (Minn. App. 2004), aff'd ___ N.W.2d ___ (Minn. Aug. 18, 2005). The sentence, therefore, may not be invalidated under Blakely. Although the Ring court made broad statements that foreshadowed Blakely, its focus was on findings that increase a defendant's sentence above the maximum sentence rather than findings that merely authorize an upward departure below the maximum sentence. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that Warmbold's original sentence of 240 months was unconstitutional under Ring. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion, and with the supreme court's decision in State v. Shattuck, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Minn. Aug. 18, 2005).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|