Legal Opinion

State v. Tanner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 20, 2006No. 9902-31447; A128680PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*72ARMSTRONG, J.

Defendant, who was convicted following a jury trial of various crimes, appeals, challenging the trial court’s authority to impose consecutive sentences for several of those convictions. The trial court imposed various presumptive-sentencing-guidelines sentences and ORS 137.700 mandatory minimum sentences, and determined that certain sentences should be served consecutively. Defendant argued to the trial court and reiterates on appeal that, under the reasoning of 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…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  5. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. People v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  3. State v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  4. State v. KeeneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007
  5. Krieg v. BellequeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

21 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