Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.765

Notice to defendant

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

      136.765 Notice to defendant. In order to rely on an enhancement fact to increase the sentence that may be imposed in a criminal proceeding, the state shall notify the defendant of its intention to rely on the enhancement fact by:

      (1) Pleading the enhancement fact in the accusatory instrument; or

      (2) Providing written notice to the defendant of the enhancement fact, and the state’s intention to rely on it, no later than 60 days after the defendant is arraigned on an indictment, waives indictment or is held to answer following a preliminary hearing, or 14 days before trial, whichever occurs earlier, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court authorizes a later date for good cause shown. [2005 c.463 §2; 2011 c.267 §1]

 

      Note: 136.765 to 136.785 were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were 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 29 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Davilla
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Davilla (2016) orctapp · cites it 6× “The statutes require the court to submit “the enhancement fact” to the jury unless, among other things, the defendant waives the right to a jury trial on the enhancement fact and either admits to the fact or elects to have the enhancement fact tried to the court.”
State v. Roberts (2009) orctapp · cites it 13× “First, he contends, the timing of the state’s notice did not comport with the requirement set out in ORS 136.765 that notice of an intention to rely on sentence enhancement facts be provided “[wjithin a reasonable time” after filing the indictment.”
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp · cites it 14× “As explained below, although the state provided adequate notice under ORS 136.765 that it intended to use defendant’s juvenile adjudication at sentencing, the trial court correctly determined that, in the circumstances presented here, Harris controls.”
State v. Sanchez (2010) orctapp · cites it 5× “Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 270 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (“What is now ORS 136.765 was the product of a work group that the Governor established in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely * * *, which recognized a defendant’s federal…”
State v. Alexander (2013) orctapp · cites it 15× “In particular, he argues that, because the state failed to satisfy the notice requirements of ORS 136.765 (2009), 1 the trial court was not permitted to impose a departure sentence.”
State v. Frinell (2018) orctapp · cites it 8× “In his fourth assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing him to six months' imprisonment on Count 4. As he did below, defendant argues on appeal that it was error for the court to impose a dispositional departure sentence on Count 4 without…”
State v. Heisser (2011) or · cites it 3× “At that hearing, defense counsel asserted that *16 the state had failed to give defendant timely notice that it intended to rely on an “enhancement fact” to increase defendant’s sentence, as required under ORS 136.765. 2 Specifically, defendant contended that the notice had not…”
State v. Reinke (2013) or · cites it 3× “ORS 136.765. They permit but do not require those facts to be found by the grand jury and pleaded in the indictment.”
State v. Speedis (2011) or · cites it 2× “See ORS 136.765. The defendant may elect to have a jury find whether that factor is present.”
State v. HEISSER (2009) orctapp · cites it 6× “See ORS 136.765 (providing that, in order to rely on an enhancement fact to increase a sentence, "the state shall notify the defendant of its intention to rely on the enhancement fact by: (1) Pleading the enhancement fact in the accusatory instrument; or (2) Within a reasonable…”
State v. Boitz (2010) orctapp · cites it 5× “Pursuant to ORS 136.765, the state provided defendant notice of its intent to seek findings of two sentence enhancement facts: (1) “That prior criminal justice system sanctions have not deterred the defendant from reoffending”; and (2) “That defendant committed this offense…”
State v. Dearmitt (2025) orctapp · cites it 4× “He con- tends that the evidence was insufficient to support a find- ing of persistent involvement, or, alternatively, that, even if the evidence was sufficient the sentencing court erred because it did not impose its sentence based solely on that fact. Instead, defendant…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.765(2) — 12 cases
State v. Davilla (2016) orctapp “The statutes require the court to submit “the enhancement fact” to the jury unless, among other things, the defendant waives the right to a jury trial on the enhancement fact and either admits to the fact or elects to have the enhancement fact tried to the court.”
State v. Sanchez (2010) orctapp “Roberts, 231 Or App 263, 270 , 219 P3d 41 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010) (“What is now ORS 136.765 was the product of a work group that the Governor established in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely * * *, which recognized a defendant’s federal…”
State v. Alexander (2013) orctapp “In particular, he argues that, because the state failed to satisfy the notice requirements of ORS 136.765 (2009), 1 the trial court was not permitted to impose a departure sentence.”
State v. Davilla (2010) orctapp
State v. Lafferty (2011) orctapp “As explained below, although the state provided adequate notice under ORS 136.765 that it intended to use defendant’s juvenile adjudication at sentencing, the trial court correctly determined that, in the circumstances presented here, Harris controls.”
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.