Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.760

Definitions for ORS 136.765 to 136.785

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.760 Definitions for ORS 136.765 to 136.785.

As used in ORS 136.765 to 136.785:

      (1) “Accusatory instrument” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005.

      (2) “Enhancement fact” means a fact that is constitutionally required to be found by a jury in order to increase the sentence that may be imposed upon conviction of a crime. [2005 c.463 §1]

 

      Note: 136.760 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 136 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: State v. Johnson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp · cites it 6× “792 to find enhancement facts and indicated that the state would seek jury findings of several such facts (includ- ing those that were ultimately found by the jury), derived from the state’s felony sentencing guidelines.20 The state argued that, given the preference for…”
State v. Davilla (2016) orctapp · cites it 2× “Speedis, 350 Or at 429 . Initially, the state must provide the defendant notice of its intention to rely on an “enhancement fact.”
State v. Frinell (2018) orctapp · cites it 4× “In 2005, in response to Blakely , the Oregon legislature enacted a statutory mechanism, codified at ORS 136.760 to 136.792, for notifying a defendant that the state intends to use "enhancement facts" to increase a sentence beyond the presumptive sentence *433 under the…”
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp · cites it 5× “” The state responded that, under Senate Bill 528 (codified now at ORS 136.760 to 136.792), it had provided sufficient *569 notice to defendant that it intended to rely on his juvenile adjudication as an “enhancement fact,” and that, under ORS 136.”
State v. Speedis (2011) or “See ORS 136.760 to 136.792. Under that law, the prosecutor must identify any aggravating factor (enumerated or nonenumerated) that provides a basis for seeking an upward departure sentence and give the defendant reasonable written notice of that factor.”
State v. Sanchez (2010) orctapp “ORS 136.760(2); see State v. Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 270 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (“What is now ORS 136.”
State v. HOLLINGQUEST (2011) orctapp · cites it 2× “case, also uses the word “may” in the context of indicating what a sentencing court on remand may do: “For the purpose of imposing a new sentence in a case that has been remanded to a trial court that will result in resentencing for which a new sentence has not been imposed…”
State v. Hagberg (2008) or “2 In 2005, the Oregon legislature enacted a statute, now codified at ORS 136.760 to 136.792, which provides procedures for notifying defendants of the state’s intent to use “enhancement facts” to increase the sentence that may be imposed for a conviction, and for submission of…”
State v. Roberts (2009) orctapp “” ORS 136.760(2). When, as occurred in this case, a defendant waives the right to a jury trial on an enhancement fact and elects to have it decided by the court, the enhancement fact— whether related to the offense or to the defendant — is tried *269 during the sentencing phase…”
State v. Boitz (2010) orctapp “The state’s argument presents an issue of first impression: whether a trial court could permissibly find a sentencing enhancement fact that varies in some manner from the enhancement fact alleged in the state’s notice pursuant to ORS 136.”
State v. Dearmitt (2022) orctapp · cites it 2× “760(2) (an enhancement fact is “constitutionally required to be found by a jury” in order to increase the sentence imposed). Cite as 321 Or App 628 (2022) 631 Because it is unclear whether the resentencing court relied only on persistent involvement or, instead, used factors…”
State v. Alexander (2013) orctapp “See also ORS 136.760(2) (2009) (an “enhancement fact” is “a fact that is constitutionally required to be found by a jury in order to increase the sentence that may be imposed upon conviction of a crime”).”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.760(2) — 12 cases
State v. Davilla (2016) orctapp “Speedis, 350 Or at 429 . Initially, the state must provide the defendant notice of its intention to rely on an “enhancement fact.”
State v. Frinell (2018) orctapp “In 2005, in response to Blakely , the Oregon legislature enacted a statutory mechanism, codified at ORS 136.760 to 136.792, for notifying a defendant that the state intends to use "enhancement facts" to increase a sentence beyond the presumptive sentence *433 under the…”
State v. Sanchez (2010) orctapp “ORS 136.760(2); see State v. Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 270 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (“What is now ORS 136.”
State v. Johnson (2023) orctapp “792 to find enhancement facts and indicated that the state would seek jury findings of several such facts (includ- ing those that were ultimately found by the jury), derived from the state’s felony sentencing guidelines.20 The state argued that, given the preference for…”
State v. Roberts (2009) orctapp “” ORS 136.760(2). When, as occurred in this case, a defendant waives the right to a jury trial on an enhancement fact and elects to have it decided by the court, the enhancement fact— whether related to the offense or to the defendant — is tried *269 during the sentencing phase…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.