Legal Opinion

State v. Vigil

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 18, 2005No. CFH020189; A121435PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Vigil, 197 Or App 407, 106 P3d 656 (2005). Specifically, he asks that we reconsider our decision affirming the trial court’s denial of defendant’s eligibility for sentence modification programs. We allow defendant’s petition, modify our opinion, and adhere to it as modified.

Defendant objects to the way in which we characterized his proposed definition of the “prescribed statutory maximum sentence” under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348,147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000). We stated, “According to defendant, then, under…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State v. VigilCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. State v. YashinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  3. State v. VedderCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  4. State v. PriceCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. State v. HollowayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006

13 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