Legal Opinion

State v. Whitlock

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 3, 2003No. 0000362CR; A115138PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced on a variety of criminal charges. After defendant began serving his sentences, and without notifying him or his attorney, the trial court entered an amended judgment that added provisions to the original sentences based on the court’s finding that defendant was a repeat offender — a fact not in the trial court record but, according to the state, available as public information. Defendant appeals from the sentences in the amended judgment. We reverse those sentences and remand for resentencing.

The only relevant facts in this case are procedural and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. DeCampCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  2. DeAngelo v. SchiedlerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. LeathersOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  4. State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. JacobsOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State v. HorsleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. ChampagneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
  2. State v. NoblesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. State v. ChampagneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API