Lutz v. Hill
Court of Appeals of Oregon
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
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Schriro v. SummerlinSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- McDonald v. BellequeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
- Peed v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
- White v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
- Shaw v. HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006