Blakely v. State of Washington
Blakely pleaded guilty to one count of second degree kidnapping and one count of second degree assault. Consistent with the plea agreement, the State recommended the high end of the standard range. After a sentencing evidentiary hearing, the trial court imposed an exceptional sentence upward (longer than the high end of the standard range, but within a statutory maximum). Blakely appealed, contending that the Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey requires that the factual basis for an exceptional sentence upward must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals of Washington rejected the appeal, holding Apprendi does not apply to factual determinations that support reasons for exceptional sentences upward. The Washington state statutory scheme permits a judge to impose an exceptional sentence within the maximum range determined by the legislature, and because the statutory and nonstatutory aggravating factors neither increase the maximum sentence nor define separate offenses calling for separate penalties, the Apprendi rule is not triggered. Consequently, the facts supporting the exceptional sentence in Blakely’s case did not have to be submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Question Presented:
Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v.
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
