Courts are fond of applying case names as shorthand rules for the procedures or rules those cases prominently represented. Sorry I got a little carried away with epon·y·mous cites.
04/27/05 USA v. Luz Raymundo Garcia U.S. Court of Appeals Case No. 04-3016 District of Nebraska Courts are fond of applying case names as shorthand rules for the procedures or rules those cases prominently represented. Sorry I got a little carried away with epynomous cites.
The Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). Recent decision Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) held Sentencing Guidelines subject to5th and 6th amendment guarantee of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for factors the State uses to sentence a criminal. Defendant timely filed his Blakely motion to hold the guidelines unconstitutional, even though he admitted the quantity of drugs the government charged him with possessing. Court holds the Defendant’s Blakely motion sufficiently preserved his Booker challenge to the guidelines, even if the Blakely motion had no constiutional merit. See United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005){federal sentencing guidelines only advisory.} Accord United States v. Haidley, No. 04-3312, 2005 WL 600358, at *1 (8th Cir. Mar. 16, 2005). The government must prove the harmlessness of the erroneous sentence when it was already at the lower end of the guideline range.
Unresolved, nice to know department: What is the proper standard for determining “harmless” error: “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967), or less stringent “grave doubt , Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65 (1946) . That dispute is for another day, another appeal and another lawyer as the record supports Garcia’s position under either standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment