State v. Schnetzky

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Schnetzky

135 P.3d 359, 205 Or. App. 673, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 617

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 10, 2006

Docket20-04-03291; A125331

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 P.3d 359 (State v. Schnetzky) 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. Schnetzky, 135 P.3d 359, 205 Or. App. 673, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 617 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree escape. ORS 162.155. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a choice-of-evils defense and in imposing a departure sentence based on a finding that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses. We reject without discussion defendant’s arguments concerning the choice-of-evils defense. On the sentencing issue, defendant argues that, 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), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not preserve the issue, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. In two recent cases, the Oregon Supreme Court found no plain error because it concluded that it could be inferred from the record that the defendants, who did not object to the court’s findings during sentencing, “chose [ ] to have the trial court, rather than a jury, find the aggravating facts.” State v. Perez, 340 Or 310, 318, 131 P3d 168 (2006); see also State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 130 P3d 780 (2006). In those cases, however, the defendants had waived their rights to jury trials. Here, defendant did not waive his right to a jury trial. Thus, it is not possible to infer from this record that defendant waived the right to have a jury determine aggravating factors at sentencing. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006).

Sentence 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 after a jury trial of second-degree escape. ORS 162.155. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a choice-of-evils defense and in imposing a departure sentence based on a finding that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses. We reject without discussion defendant’s arguments concerning the choice-of-evils defense. On the sentencing issue, defendant argues that, 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), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not preserve the issue, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. In two recent cases, the Oregon Supreme Court found no plain error because it concluded that it could be inferred from the record that the defendants, who did not object to the court’s findings during sentencing, “chose [ ] to have the trial court, rather than a jury, find the aggravating facts.” State v. Perez, 340 Or 310, 318, 131 P3d 168 (2006); see also State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 130 P3d 780 (2006). In those cases, however, the defendants had waived their rights to jury trials. Here, defendant did not waive his right to a jury trial. Thus, it is not possible to infer from this record that defendant waived the right to have a jury determine aggravating factors at sentencing. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006).

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 P.3d 359, 205 Or. App. 673, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-schnetzky-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack