Legal Opinion

Lutz v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 26, 2006No. 04-12-4107M; A128724PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.

Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. ORS 138.530; ORS 138.510(3). That petition alleged that (1) under the reasoning of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), the criminal trial court acted unconstitutionally in imposing an upward departure sentence and consecutive sentences; and (2) the failure of petitioner’s criminal trial and appellate counsel to challenge the imposition of the consecutive sentences and the upward departure…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Schriro v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. McDonald v. BellequeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  2. Peed v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. White v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  4. Shaw v. HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API