Skip to content
Name: Oregon v. Ice
Case #: 07-901
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 01/14/2009
Subsequent History: 129 S.Ct. 711; 172 L.Ed.2d 517

There is no Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial for determination of facts permitting imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses. Declining to extend Apprendi (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466) and Blakely (Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296) to state consecutive sentencing schemes, the Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s statute that assigns to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to imposition of consecutive sentences for discrete offenses, as opposed to concurrent sentences.