State v. Murphy

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Murphy

135 P.3d 357, 205 Or. App. 675, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 607

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 10, 2006

Docket001138863; A117287

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 P.3d 357 (State v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Murphy, 135 P.3d 357, 205 Or. App. 675, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 607 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in several respects in sentencing him. We need reach only one of defendant’s assignments of error because, as the state concedes, defendant is entitled to resentencing based on that error.

The trial court determined defendant’s criminal history score in part based on a prior juvenile adjudication. In State v. Harris, 339 Or 157, 172, 118 P3d 236 (2005), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that, in this context, a prior Oregon juvenile adjudication is a “fact that increases a criminal sentence beyond its statutory maximum and must be proved to a jury,” citing 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). The trial court erred in rejecting defendant’s Apprendi-based arguments concerning the use of juvenile adjudications.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of third-degree robbery, ORS 164.395, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in several respects in sentencing him. We need reach only one of defendant’s assignments of error because, as the state concedes, defendant is entitled to resentencing based on that error.

The trial court determined defendant’s criminal history score in part based on a prior juvenile adjudication. In State v. Harris, 339 Or 157, 172, 118 P3d 236 (2005), the Oregon Supreme Court explained that, in this context, a prior Oregon juvenile adjudication is a “fact that increases a criminal sentence beyond its statutory maximum and must be proved to a jury,” citing 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). The trial court erred in rejecting defendant’s Apprendi-based arguments concerning the use of juvenile adjudications.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 P.3d 357, 205 Or. App. 675, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murphy-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack