State v. Banks
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentEdmonds, J.
Once again, the court is required to confront the provisions of ORAP 5.45(1) and determine whether the error claimed for the first time on appeal is error apparent on the face of the record, and, if it is, whether this court should exercise its discretion to correct it. The majority concludes that the initial criteria under the rule are satisfied and proceeds to exercise its discretion to remand for resentencing. I disagree with the majority’s decision for the reasons that follow.
The majority’s decision perpetuates this court’s jurisprudence in State v. Jury, 185 Or App 132, 57 P3d 970…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. FultsOregon Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. RamirezOregon Supreme Court · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.