informed and knowing waiver (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

informed and knowing waiver in Oregon

5 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Harrisgreen
or · 2005 · cited in 4 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2006–2020
2 sentences

2011At the same time, we also hold that the Sixth Amendment requires that *572 when such an adjudication is offered as an enhancement factor to increase a criminal sentence, its existence must either be proved to a trier of fact or be admitted by a defendant for sentencing purposes following an informed and knowing waiver.” Id. at 175.

2011At the same time, we also hold that the Sixth Amendment requires that when such an adjudication is offered as an enhancement factor to increase a criminal sentence, its existence must either be proved to a trier of fact or be admitted by a defendant for *1271 sentencing purposes following an informed and knowing waiver." Id. at 175, 118 P.3d 236 .

24

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Blakely v. Washington green
scotus · 2004
1 sentence

2011The court in Harris also addressed the state's alternative contention that, because the defendant's guilty plea included enhancement facts, the use of the juvenile adjudication to enhance his sentence fell within the exception that the Court recognized in Blakely for facts "admitted by the defendant." 542 U.S. at 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531 .

12011–2011
State v. Hitz green
or · 1988
2 sentences

2005Although defendant in the present case did not make the precise argument that the court found dispositive in Harris , he sufficiently preserved his challenge to the use of juvenile adjudications in sentencing under the principles announced in State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988).

2005Although defendant in the present case did not make the precise argument that the court found dispositive in Harris , he sufficiently preserved his challenge to the use of juvenile adjudications in sentencing under the principles announced in State v. Hitz, 307 Or 183, 188 , 766 P2d 373 (1988).

12005–2005

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check