High court clears way for changed sentencing
by The Associated Press
SALEM — Hundreds of already-convicted criminals might have their sentences changed, following a ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court, which grants juries the right to decide longer prison terms.
The justices ruled that juries, not judges, have the power to lengthen sentences based on aggravating factors, such as the use of a gun or racial motivations. They also ruled that asking juries to consider new sentences for criminals who have already been convicted does not violate the constitutional ban against being tried twice for the same crime.
The justices sided with the state in the trio of decisions released on the final business day of 2005, clearing the legal confusion arising from last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling which cast doubt on Oregon's criminal-sentencing guidelines.
"In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, there were questions about the procedures that prosecutors could use to have courts impose these (longer) sentences. State legislation clarified the process, but there was a question about whether it was retroactive. That is resolved by these decisions,'' said Kevin Neely, spokesman for Attorney General Hardy Myers.
As many as 300 cases could be affected by the ruling, officials say.
Oregon's appellate courts have already returned to trial courts several cases in which criminal defendants were appealing their sentences.
On the books since 1989, Oregon's sentencing guidelines rely on a judge to decide if aggravating factors, such as the use of a weapon, calls for a prison sentence exceeding the customary guidelines. But last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury, not a judge, must decide beyond a reasonable doubt whether there are aggravating factors, because leaving such a decision to a judge violates the constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury, the high court ruled.
"A trial court must base an enhanced sentence on facts found by a jury,'' wrote Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul De Muniz.
"The new approach does not prejudice a defendant; indeed, it vindicates his constitutional rights.''
On the issue of double jeopardy, he went on to say: "This is not a second prosecution... Rather, it is a sentencing proceeding on remand — a continuation of a single prosecution.''
|
