by TChris

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case that could have a profound impact on the future of the federal sentencing guidelines. In an attempt to persuade his wife not to divorce him, Ralph Blakely forced her to travel from their home in Washington to family property in Montana. It's easy to understand why Blakely's wife wanted a divorce: during much of the trip, Blakely made her ride in a coffin in the back of his pickup truck with her wrists bound and head wrapped in duct tape. He also threated to shoot their son, who managed to escape on the way to Montana. Blakely was arrested and returned to Washington, where he eventually agreed to plead guilty to two reduced charges while maintaining his innocence.

The maximum sentence was 10 years, but Washington's sentencing guidelines called for a sentence of 53 months. Deciding that deliberate cruelty and violence were aggravating factors that justified a longer sentence, the judge imposed 90 months. Blakely argues that the longer sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey because the aggravating factors that increased his sentence were not submitted to a jury or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Washington courts disagreed, holding that Apprendi only requires a jury to determine a fact if the existence of the fact would increase the statutory maximum sentence.