part 1

This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: Ryan • June 17, 2013 • no comments

Throughout the day, I plan on posting quotes from the Alleyne decision which raise interesting issues. Right now, I am not inclined to believe that Alleyne directly impacts Oregon sentencing. Others may differ, and I would love for them to change my mind. But I think the opinion suggests arguments we need to keep making, with the hope the law will change in our favor down the road.

The first quote is a footnote, and it is:

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224 (1998), we recognized a narrow exception to this general rule for the fact of a prior conviction. Because the parties do not contest that decision’s vitality, we do not revisit it for purposes of our decision today.

I won't bore you with the long tortured history regarding the validity of Almendarez-Torres, but you can find my posts that do so. The bottom line is that you may want to object to the use of any prior criminal convictions in order to either move the defendant up the sentencing grid or to impose a repeat property sentence. You will lose that argument at the trial level, because Alleyne doesn't reverse Almendarez-Torres, but certainly Justice Thomas hints that the issue may come up again. (Though we've had such hints for years and so far nothing has changed.)