State v. Avery
Court of Appeals of Alaska
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COATS, Chief Judge.
In Blakely v. Washington,1 the United States Supreme Court held that “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”2 Avery, who had been sentenced -by Acting Superior Court Judge Jane F. Kauvar before the Blakely decision, filed a motion to correct his sentence under Alaska Criminal Rule 35(a), arguing that his sentence was illegal under Blakely because…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Thomas v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. TinsleyCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smart v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006
- Baker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2008
- Smart v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006
- State v. AveryCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006