[Binkmeister]

When a Judge imposes a sentence outside the standard or recommended range, he or she must comply with the rule announced in Blakely vs. Washington (2003), which relied on Apprendi vs. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (2000). If there had to be an additional fact found to impose the greater sentence, that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This guys sentence might offend the rule of Apprendi and Blakely. Usually the problem is that the judge just makes the finding himself without allowing a jury to make the finding. That offends the right to trial by jury of the facts of the crime and the basis for the sentence. Also, it sounds like the counsel was "ineffective". I wonder about a system that creates a set of special laws that narrows ones right to defend oneself in court, like not allowing a cross examination of the prosecution witness about her background and her reasons for lying or truth-telling. This business of putting a witness on the stand and then limiting the areas of cross it another probable violation of the Constitution. This can lead to a railroad job.

[The Red Zone]

One of the "cracks" something like this could fall into is that the man legally wasn't indigent because his assets were in limbo rather than gone. I would dare to bet if this situation hit the Supreme Court they would follow earlier precedent on right to access to effective counsel. I wonder if he was represented by a traffic court lawyer.

[Senator Bedfellow]

When a Judge imposes a sentence outside the standard or recommended range, he or she must comply with the rule announced in Blakely vs. Washington (2003)

Blakely is, so far, not retroactive, and how is a judge imposing sentence in 1986 supposed to comply with a ruling made in 2003?