Oregon v. Ice

The case arose in Oregon, where a state judge sentenced landlord Thomas Eugene Ice to 340 months in prison for twice burglarizing a tenant’s apartment and molesting her young daughter. Over Ice’s objections, the trial judge imposed consecutive sentences based on its own factual findings in the case.

In 2001, the state court of appeals affirmed the judge’s decision without opinion. In October 2007, a 5-2 Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

The majority held that the trial court violated Ice’s Sixth Amendment right, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), which established that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences must be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

“The federal constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge,find the facts that Oregon law requires be present before a judge can impose consecutive sentences,” the majority held.

The state asked the high court to intervene, pointing to a split among the state supreme courts on the issue.

“The majority of state courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that the principles of Apprendi and Blakely do not apply to findings required for imposition of consecutive sentences,” the brief states. “Illinois, Maine, Indiana, Tennessee, Minnesota, Alaska and Colorado provide the clearest examples…. Each state’s highest appellate court to have addressed the question concluded, unlike the Oregon Supreme Court, that this Court’s cases were not intended to apply to
aggregate sentences, but only to the individual sentence imposed for each separate conviction.”

The justices will hear oral arguments in the fall.

Question presented:

Whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), requires that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether only a jury, not a judge, may impose sentences for multiple crimes consecutively.

The Supreme Court held today that the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit judges from imposing consecutive sentences based on facts not found by a jury.

The case arose in Oregon, where a state judge sentenced landlord Thomas Eugene Ice to 340 months in prison for twice burglarizing a tenant’s apartment and molesting her young daughter. Over Ice’s objections, the trial judge imposed consecutive sentences based on its own factual findings in the case.

In 2001, the state court of appeals affirmed the judge’s decision without opinion. In October 2007, a 5-2 Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded for resentencing.

The majority held that the trial court violated Ice’s Sixth Amendment right, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and Blakely v. Washington (2004), which established that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences must be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

“The federal constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, find the facts that Oregon law requires be present before a judge can impose consecutive sentences,” the majority held.

The state asked the high court to intervene, pointing to a split among the state supreme courts on the issue.

“The majority of state courts that have addressed the issue have concluded that the principles of Apprendi and Blakely do not apply to findings required for imposition of consecutive sentences,” the brief states. “Illinois, Maine, Indiana, Tennessee, Minnesota, Alaska and Colorado provide the clearest examples…. Each state’s highest appellate court to have addressed the question concluded, unlike the Oregon Supreme Court, that this Court’s cases were not intended to apply to aggregate sentences, but only to the individual sentence imposed for each separate conviction.”

On Jan. 14, 2009, a divided Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision.

"In light of historical practice and the States’ authority over administration of their criminal justice systems, the Sixth Amendment does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than to juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the 5-4 majority.

Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas and David Souter join, dissented:

"Oregon’s sentencing scheme allows judges rather than juries to find the facts necessary to commit defendants to longer prison sentences, and thus directly contradicts what we held eight years ago and have reaffirmed several times since."

Question presented:

Whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), requires that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether only a jury, not a judge, may impose sentences for multiple crimes consecutively.