Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Riehle v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 1, 2005No. 15A05-0311-CR-557Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, Judge

I respectfully dissent from Part V, the majority's conclusion to remand the case for resentencing in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), reh'g denied. As recognized by the majority, our United States Supreme Court held in Blakely that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt the *299existence of aggravating factors used to increase the sentence for a crime above the presumptive sentence assigned by the legislature. Id., 124 S.Ct. at 2536. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that er than the fact of a prior…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Means v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API