Legal Opinion

State v. Wick

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 5, 2007No. 040532848; A129555PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of first-degree sodomy and first-degree sexual abuse. At sentencing, the court refused to impose consecutive sentences on the ground that it would be required to engage in judicial factfinding in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the principles enunciated in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000). The state appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to either impose consecutive sentences on its own findings…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. State v. IceOregon Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State v. UptonOregon Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. HeilmanOregon Supreme Court · 2005

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. LaffertyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. State v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. WickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
  4. State v. LaffertyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  5. State v. WickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API