Legal Opinion

State v. Upton

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 2005No. CC 04-419; SC S52316PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDe Muniz, J.

This is an original mandamus proceeding. The issue it presents is whether a trial court has the authority under Oregon law to submit certain “sentence enhancement factors” 1 to a jury for factual determination as required under the Sixth Amendment principles articulated by the United States Supreme Court in 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).

Defendant is charged in a six-count “second superseding indictment” with racketeering (ORS 166.720), two counts of first-degree aggravated…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Stogner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  5. State v. DiltsOregon Supreme Court · 2004

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. State v. JessHawaii Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. Moore/CoenOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Creekmore v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. Hankerson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  5. State v. SawatzkyOregon Supreme Court · 2005

23 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