Legal Opinion
In Re Consiglio
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 15, 2005No. D045081PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McCONNELL, P. J.
In this case, we reject petitioner’s contention the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531] (Blakely) applies retroactively to cases that were final when the decision was issued. We also reject petitioner’s contention the sentencing judge did not realize he had discretion to sentence concurrently.
BACKGROUND
In Blakely, the United States Supreme Court held any fact (other than the fact of a prior conviction) that increases the punishment for a crime beyond the “statutory maximum” must be found…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Schriro v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. FeblesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- In re MiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2022
- In Re GomezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- In re MiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019
- People v. Reed CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.