Legal Opinion
State v. Ice
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided October 11, 2007No. CC 99C49779; CA A111668; SC S52248PublishedCited by 112 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*250GILLETTE, J.
The question in this criminal case is whether the state or federal constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, find the facts that Oregon law requires be present before a judge can impose consecutive sentences. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court in the present case imposed consecutive sentences based on its own factual findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment without opinion. State v. Ice, 178 Or App 415, 39 P3d 291 (2001). We allowed defendant’s petition for review and now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment…
2Cases cited19 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
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by112 opinions
- Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- State v. AllenTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. VanceWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. VanceWashington Supreme Court · 2010
107 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.