Apprendi-Blakely
JOIN
DonateNow
SearchSite
Honker_111x111

New York State
Defenders Association
194 Washington Ave,
Suite 500
Albany, NY 12210
(518) 465-3524
FAX: 465-3249

 

Current Developments____________________

 

Apprendi in New York______________________________

Brown v. Greiner, New York Law Journal, March 31, 2003 (EDNY). "New York's discretionary persistent felony offender statute subjected Brown to a term of imprisonment that more than doubled the statutory maximum sentence he faced based on the jury's verdict. The enhanced sentence was based on a judge's factual findings about Brown's personal history and character. Put another way, it was based on facts that were not charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This violated the rule in Apprendi . Id at 490. Since Brown raised his claim on direct review in state court, which denied it on the merits, there is no procedural impediment to his reliance on it here. Brown is thus entitled to habeas relief."

People v. Horne , No. 24 (NY March 14, 2002). Defendant was convicted of offering a false instrument for filing and ordered to pay restitution equal to the benefit overpayments. On appeal, defendant claimed that the restitution order was illegal. Among the points raised was an Apprendi violation. Since the trial court's factual determination of restitution did not enlarge the maximum penalty for the offense, it did not violate Apprendi."Restitution falls within the range of sentences available for any offense in New York; it is not a post-conviction sentencing enhancement mechanism analogous to the New Jersey statute addressed in Apprendi." Moreover, restitution in this context was compensatory, not punitive.

People v. Rosen,96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2001). Defendant with two prior felony convictions was convicted after trial of 1st Degree Sexual Abuse. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life as a persistent felony offender. On appeal, he raised for the first time an Apprendi challenge to New York's discretionary persistent felony offender statute, among other issues. The Court of Appeals rejected it concluding: "Defendant had no constitutional right to a jury trial to establish the facts of his prior felony convictions." The remaining issues were rejected or unpreserved. Read more about the case in State's Persistent Felon Law Held Constitutional, New York Law Journal, April 4, 2001

 

Current Developments Outside New York_______________

 

Special Reports (Blakely)___________________________

he Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, No. 02-1632 (US June 24, 2004) held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial required that facts justifying an enhanced sentence, except for prior convictions, were to be based on either a jury verdict or admitted by the defendant in a plea, but could not be determined by the judge alone. It has caused a stir in courts and legislatures nationwide.

 

Reports_________________________________________

 

Research Links___________________________________

* Please note that Public defense lawyers and members of the public who need information or assistance may contact the Backup Center by phone at (518) 465-3524
or through our online Request Form.

nysda.org was last updated Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

Click here to search the entire site.

Please click here to read our disclaimers and copyright notice.

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.
© Copyright 1995-2008, New York State Defenders Association, Inc. All rights reserved.