Legal Opinion
State v. Ferman-Velasco
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 28, 2002No. C952773CR; CA A95127; SC S46172PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCarson, C. J.
In this criminal case, defendant claims that his mandatory minimum sentences, which the trial court imposed under ORS 137.700 (popularly known as Ballot Measure 11 (1994)), 1 offend certain provisions of the state and federal constitutions. He also argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay some of the prosecution’s witness fees. A divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, rejected all defendant’s arguments. State v. Ferman-Velasco, 157 Or App 415, 971 P2d 897 (1998). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the trial…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Harmelin v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. Rodriguez/BuckOregon Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. WheelerOregon Supreme Court · 2007
- Utter v. Department of Social & Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Utter v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SER.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- State v. DiltsOregon Supreme Court · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.