Legal Opinion

State v. Vigil

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 9, 2005No. CFH020189; A121435PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

A jury convicted defendant of nine offenses. At sentencing, the trial court ordered that defendant not be considered for temporary leave, earned time sentence reductions, early and work release, or other forms of sentence modification. ORS 137.750; ORS 137.752. On appeal, defendant argues that, because the denial was based on a fact found by the court rather than by the jury, his sentence is unlawful under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000). Defendant concedes that he did not raise the issue before the trial court, but he argues that we may review it as…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  5. State v. DiltsOregon Supreme Court · 2004

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. State v. VigilCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  3. State v. YashinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
  5. State v. RossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

17 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