State v. Upton
Oregon Supreme Court
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
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Wardius v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Stogner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- State v. DiltsOregon Supreme Court · 2004
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- State v. JessHawaii Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. Moore/CoenOregon Supreme Court · 2010
- Creekmore v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2006
- Hankerson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
- State v. SawatzkyOregon Supreme Court · 2005
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.