McClanahan v. Hill

112 P.3d 456, 200 Or. App. 9, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 656
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided May 25, 2005·No. CV00-0145; A112913·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from the post-conviction court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, making several arguments in his appellate brief. We reject those arguments without discussion. Petitioner also has filed a supplemental brief in which he asserts that the stipulated departure sentence on his conviction for first-degree manslaughter is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000).

We reject petitioner’s argument because the principles announced by the Court in Blakely and Apprendi do not apply retroactively in a collateral proceeding such as this one. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133, cert den, _US_, 125 S Ct 205 (2004); Makinson v. Lampert, 199 Or App 418, 112 P3d 365 (2005); see also Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 US 348, 124 S Ct 2519, 159 L Ed 2d 442 (2004) (jury trial right set forth in Apprendi does not apply retroactively in collateral proceedings).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McClanahan v. Hill, 112 P.3d 456, 200 Or. App. 9, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 656 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

112 P.3d 456 (McClanahan v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McClanahan v. Hill
112 P.3d 456 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2005)