Legal Opinion

Febuary v. State of Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 2017No. CC 080982; CA A154662; SC S063867PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, C. J.

The prophylactic rule of State v. Partain, 349 Or 10, 239 P3d 232 (2010), protects against vindictiveness in the resentencing of a criminal offender after a successful appeal. Partain, in turn, was based on North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 US 711, 89 S Ct 2072, 23 L Ed 2d 656 (1969), where the United States Supreme Court held that due process “requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked [a] first conviction must play no part in the sentence [the defendant] receives after a new trial.” Id. at 725. In this case, the specific issue is how Partain and Pearce…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. SierraOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State v. BarrettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  3. State v. BroylesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  4. State v. Hernandez-SanchezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  5. Aguirre v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API