presentence hearing (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

presentence hearing in Oregon

6 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2022 1 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Smithgreen
orctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Id. at 8; see also State v. Smith, 66 Or App 374, 385 , 675 P2d 1060 (1984) (concluding that a dangerous offender determi- nation may stand on its own, even absent psychiatric evi- dence, if supported by ample evidence in the record).

2022Id. at 8; see also State v. Smith, 66 Or App 374, 385 , 675 P2d 1060 (1984) (concluding that a dangerous offender determi- nation may stand on its own, even absent psychiatric evi- dence, if supported by ample evidence in the record).

11
State v. Warnergreen
orctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000The parties may offer evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses during the hearing. “(4) s * * fj]f the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or threatened to use a firearm during the commission of the crime, it shall impose at least the minimum term of imprisonment [5,10, or 30 years] as provided in subsection (5) of this section.” 4 ORS 161.610 was preceded by former ORS 166.230 (1977), which provided for an enhanced sentence of 10 years for “[alny person who commits or attempts to commit any felony while armed with any * * firearm capable of being concealed up

2000The parties may offer evidence and examine and cross-examine witnesses during the hearing. “(4) s * * fj]f the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used or threatened to use a firearm during the commission of the crime, it shall impose at least the minimum term of imprisonment [5,10, or 30 years] as provided in subsection (5) of this section.” 4 ORS 161.610 was preceded by former ORS 166.230 (1977), which provided for an enhanced sentence of 10 years for “[alny person who commits or attempts to commit any felony while armed with any * * firearm capable of being concealed up

11

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Huntley green
or · 1986
2 sentences

1986As we held in State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418 , 730 P2d 1234 (1986), whether a defendant comes within ORS 161.725 and 161.735 is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon consideration of the presentence report, the psychiatric report, the evidence in the case or any evidence produced at the presentence hearing.

1986As we held in State v. Huntley, 302 Or 418 , 730 P2d 1234 (1986), whether a defendant comes within ORS 161.725 and 161.735 is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon consideration of the presentence report, the psychiatric report, the evidence in the case or any evidence produced at the presentence hearing.

21986–1992
State v. Parkerson green
orctapp · 2022
1 sentence

2022Thus, when a “court makes the [necessary] findings, * * * the prerequisites for the enhanced penalty Cite as 319 Or App 477 (2022) 485 are met” so long as they are supported by the facts and the law.

12022–2022
State v. Nickell neutral
or · 1986
2 sentences

2022Whether a defendant “comes within * * * ORS 161.735 is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon con- sideration of the presentence report, the psychiatric report, the evidence in the case or any evidence produced at the presentence hearing.” State v. Nickell, 302 Or 439, 443 , 730 P2d 1246 (1986).

2022Whether a defendant “comes within * * * ORS 161.735 is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon con- sideration of the presentence report, the psychiatric report, the evidence in the case or any evidence produced at the presentence hearing.” State v. Nickell, 302 Or 439, 443 , 730 P2d 1246 (1986).

12022–2022
State v. Kabachenko neutral
orctapp · 1970
2 sentences

1974NOTES [1] the presentence hearing and upon the consideration of the psychiatric report required * * * the court may, in its discretion * * * sentence any person convicted under * * * ORS 167.040 * * * to an indeterminate term not exceeding the natural life of such person if: "(1) The offense involved a child under the age of 16 years; and "(2) The court finds that such person has a mental or emotional disturbance, deficiency or condition predisposing him to the commission of any crime punishable under ORS * * * 167.040 * * * to a degree rendering the person a menace to the health or safety of

1974App. 202 , 465 P.2d 891 , Sup.Ct. review denied (1970), hold that on direct appeal following a guilty plea it is not possible to contest constitutionality of the substantive statute defining the elements of the crime involved. [3] ORS 426.510(1) provides: "`Sexually dangerous person' means one, not insane who by a course of repeated misconduct in sexual matters has evidenced such lack of power to control his sexual impulses as to be dangerous to other persons of the age of 12 or under because he is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury or pain on the objects of his desire." [1] State v.

11974–1974
State v. Middleton neutral
orctapp · 1970
1 sentence

1974App. 202 , 465 P.2d 891 , Sup.Ct. review denied (1970), hold that on direct appeal following a guilty plea it is not possible to contest constitutionality of the substantive statute defining the elements of the crime involved. [3] ORS 426.510(1) provides: "`Sexually dangerous person' means one, not insane who by a course of repeated misconduct in sexual matters has evidenced such lack of power to control his sexual impulses as to be dangerous to other persons of the age of 12 or under because he is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury or pain on the objects of his desire." [1] State v.

11974–1974
State v. Waterhouse green
or · 1957
2 sentences

1960State of Oregon v. Water-house, 209 Or 424 , 307 P2d 327 .

1960State of Oregon v. Water-house, 209 Or 424 , 307 P2d 327 .

11960–1960

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.725 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

GA 60 (1971–2026) NE 19 (1969–2025) IL 16 (1969–2007) OH 12 (1984–2024) PA 10 (1989–2025) AZ 9 (1983–2015) MT 8 (1976–2011) OR 6 (1960–2022) NY 6 (1982–1994) MO 5 (1980–2017) CA 5 (1988–2022) SD 5 (1996–2019) TX 4 (2010–2017) LA 4 (1981–2010) NC 3 (2020–2020) CO 3 (1989–2015) KS 3 (2001–2020) FL 3 (2001–2007) IN 2 (1981–1989) DC 2 (2010–2010) NJ 2 (1973–1990) CT 2 (1990–1992) MA 2 (1977–1984) ID 2 (1990–1991) MD 2 (1965–1986) WY 2 (1981–1983)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check