No. 24-6062
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: apprendi-precedent blakely-rule criminal-procedure jury-trial sentencing-enhancement sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2025-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Blakely v. Washington establish an 'unpled but admitted facts' exception to Apprendi v. New Jersey's Sixth Amendment interpretation regarding jury fact-finding for sentence enhancements?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Does this Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) establish an “unpled but admitted facts” exception to the rule set forth in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), wherein this Court interpreted the Sixth Amendment as requiring a state government to prove any fact that increases the permissible penalty for a crime (other than the fact of a prior conviction) to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? ii
Docket Entries
2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-12
Waiver of Kansas of right to respond submitted.
2024-12-12
Waiver of right of respondent Kansas to respond filed.
2024-11-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2025)
Attorneys
Efe Clinton Osaghae
Randall Lee Hodgkinson — Kansas Appellate Defender Off., Petitioner
Kansas
Anthony John Powell — Office of the Kansas Attorney General, Respondent