State of Minnesota v. Anthony Osborne, Sr.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that Anthony Osborne did not forfeit his Blakely v. Washington claim by failing to raise it at sentencing because Blakely had not yet been decided and existing Minnesota precedent rejected comparable claims. The court concluded that the jury verdicts on other offenses and lesser-included offenses did not establish the aggravating facts supporting the upward sentencing departures. The court affirmed review of the alleged Blakely errors under a harmless-error standard.

Holdings

1. Blakely applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review when Blakely was announced. Osborne's case remained pending because the 90-day period for seeking United States Supreme Court review had not expired when Blakely was decided.
2. A defendant does not forfeit appellate consideration of a Blakely sentencing claim by failing to object at sentencing when Blakely had not yet been decided and controlling Minnesota precedent had rejected the relevant constitutional theory.
3. The jury verdicts on the offenses for which Osborne was convicted and sentenced could not be used to support the upward sentencing departures on counts 2, 3, and 27.
4. The elements of a lesser-included offense under Minnesota Statutes section 609.04, subdivision 1(4), cannot support an upward sentencing departure.
5. The upward sentencing departures violated Blakely because the aggravating factors were neither found by the jury nor admitted by Osborne, and the error was prejudicial rather than harmless because it increased the governing sentence by 67 months.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Blakely v. Washington applied retroactively to Osborne's case, which remained pending on direct review when Blakely was decided.
2. Whether Osborne forfeited appellate review of his Blakely claim by failing to object at sentencing.
3. Whether jury verdicts on other counts, including lesser-included offenses, supplied the facts necessary to support the upward sentencing departures.
4. Whether the district court's reliance on aggravating factors neither found by the jury nor admitted by Osborne constituted harmless error.

Disposition

affirmed