Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T19:07:33Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "The Oregon Supreme Court quietly denied review in ''State v. Simonson'' last week. That case was held in abeyance for quite awhile, more than a year, as the Supreme Court dec..."

2013-07-06T16:57:51Z

Created page with "The Oregon Supreme Court quietly denied review in ''State v. Simonson'' last week. That case was held in abeyance for quite awhile, more than a year, as the Supreme Court dec..."

New page

The Oregon Supreme Court quietly denied review in ''State v. Simonson'' last week. That case was held in abeyance for quite awhile, more than a year, as the Supreme Court decided ''Ofodrinwa''.

The COA in ''Simonson'' ruled that making Sex Abuse II a level-7 on the grid, when Rape III was a 6, was disproportionate. This holding would probably only apply when Sex Abuse II was based on age, not an actual lack of consent.

<summary>The state's response, aside from petitioning for review, has been to argue that Sex Abuse II is now a 6, eliminating the proportionality problem. Most judges, as far as I know, have rejected that analysis. Rather, they have agreed with the defense argument that the crime is now unranked, and the judge can make findings regarding where to rank it, between 1 and 6.</summary>

There is one more argument, one step further, which claims that the actual ranking is a jury question under ''Blakely''. The COA gave short-shrift to that argument in a different context, but the logic seems unassailable.

I think the reason, in part, that the COA didn't give it much weight is that the COA -- in a variety of situations -- hasn't yet recognized that elevating the grid block is just as much a ''blakely'' issue as doubling the presumptive sentence via upward departure. When we break through that wall, as we will eventually, a lot of advantages will fall our way. Here's [http://Blog:Main/How_Many_Jurors_Does_It_Take_to_Acquit_of_a_CDO_Factor%3F_Or_the_Gun_Minimum%3F one], which could be used in any case involving the CDO factors or the gun minimum, but I don't know of anyone who has preserved it yet.
{{wl-publish: 2013-07-06 09:57:51 -0700 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, August 9, 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I think the reason, in part, that the COA didn't give it much weight is that the COA -- in a variety of situations -- hasn't yet recognized that elevating the grid block is just as much a ''blakely'' issue as doubling the presumptive sentence via upward departure. When we break through that wall, as we will eventually, a lot of advantages will fall our way. Here's [http://Blog:Main/How_Many_Jurors_Does_It_Take_to_Acquit_of_a_CDO_Factor%3F_Or_the_Gun_Minimum%3F one], which could be used in any case involving the CDO factors or the gun minimum, but I don't know of anyone who has preserved it yet.		I think the reason, in part, that the COA didn't give it much weight is that the COA -- in a variety of situations -- hasn't yet recognized that elevating the grid block is just as much a ''blakely'' issue as doubling the presumptive sentence via upward departure. When we break through that wall, as we will eventually, a lot of advantages will fall our way. Here's [http://Blog:Main/How_Many_Jurors_Does_It_Take_to_Acquit_of_a_CDO_Factor%3F_Or_the_Gun_Minimum%3F one], which could be used in any case involving the CDO factors or the gun minimum, but I don't know of anyone who has preserved it yet.
−	{{wl-publish: 2013-07-06 09:57:51 -0700 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2013-07-06 09:57:51 -0700 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

Blog:Main/Sex Abuse II Non-News - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com: Created page with "The Oregon Supreme Court quietly denied review in ''State v. Simonson'' last week. That case was held in abeyance for quite awhile, more than a year, as the Supreme Court dec..."