State v. Lafferty
240 Or. App. 564
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lafferty was indicted in April 2007 on multiple offenses in two cases; the state offered plea deals tying an agreed Ballot Measure 11 sentence to dismissing other counts.
- In the first case, the state offered a 70-month Ballot Measure 11 sentence with no departure for a juvenile adjudication; the offer noted a juvenile person felony could be used for criminal history.
- In the second case, the state offered open sentencing for Burglary I and Assault III, with the court determining whether enhancements would apply during sentencing.
- A presentence report included a Harney County juvenile adjudication (described as a 'person felony') in Lafferty’s criminal history score; the state sought to rely on it for a higher score.
- Defendant objected to using the juvenile adjudication for criminal history, arguing Harris controls and requires a jury finding or admission for enhancement facts; the trial court rejected this, and the state appealed.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the state satisfied ORS 136.765’s notice requirements and that Harris controls on the waiver issue, thus affirming the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice under ORS 136.765 to rely on juvenile adjudication | State satisfied notice via plea offers and worksheets | Notice was insufficient to rely on juvenile adjudication | Notice adequate; Harris controls on waiver issue |
| Effect of ORS 136.776 on jury trial waiver for enhancement facts | Guilty pleas implied waiver of enhancement facts | Waiver must be written and knowingly given for enhancement facts | Waiver must be written and knowingly given; not satisfied here, Harris remains controlling |
| Whether defendant validly waived right to jury on sentencing enhancements by pleading guilty | Plea and open sentencing imply waiver to enhancements | No explicit waiver of sentencing enhancements; rights remained | No valid, knowing waiver of sentencing-enhancement rights; Harris applies |
| Remedy on appeal | Remand for proof of juvenile adjudication | Remand not appropriate | Affirm convictions and sentences; no remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 339 Or. 157 (2005) (juvenile adjudications may be used to increase sentence with jury or admission)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond max must be juried)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi applied to sentencing gaps; limits on upward departures)
- State v. Wick, 216 Or. App. 404 (2007) (adequacy of notice under ORS 136.765; contemporaneous reasoning for notice)
- State v. Heilman, 339 Or. 661 (2005) (implied waiver of jury rights under some circumstances)
- State v. Gornick, 340 Or. 160 (2006) (preservation/preservation of jury-trial issues for sentencing)