[The Red Zone]

One of the "cracks" something like this could fall into is that the man legally wasn't indigent because his assets were in limbo rather than gone. I would dare to bet if this situation hit the Supreme Court they would follow earlier precedent on right to access to effective counsel. I wonder if he was represented by a traffic court lawyer.

[Binkmeister]

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000): "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt". So, my question is, what justified the rather long sentence, in excess of the range? If the judge found facts, he violated the Constitution. Apprendi and Blakely were cases based on crimes which occured may years ago. This law should be applicable, right?