State v. Lafferty, 240 Or. App. 564

State appeals convictions and sentences for third‑degree assault and first‑degree burglary, challenging the criminal history calculation.
Prosecutor offered a plea including potential use of a juvenile adjudication to compute the criminal history score (D) under SB 528 and ORS 136.760–136.792.
Defendant had a 2002 Harney County juvenile adjudication; the state claimed it could be used to increase criminal history score even though defendant lacked jury trial rights in juvenile case.
Plea and sentencing proceeded with open sentencing; the presentence report included the juvenile adjudication as an enhancement fact.
Defendant objected that Harris controls and the state failed to provide adequate notice under ORS 136.765 that it would rely on the juvenile adjudication for criminal history.
The trial court and the Oregon Court of Appeals (Harris remained controlling) addressed whether ORS 136.776 requires a written waiver of the jury trial on enhancement facts and whether defendant validly waived that right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice under ORS 136.765	State satisfied notice by plea offers and history worksheet.	Notice did not unambiguously convey reliance on juvenile adjudication for history.	Notice adequate; Harris controls on waiver question.
Effect of ORS 136.776 on jury waiver for enhancement facts	Guilty pleas constitute waiver of enhancement facts under ORS 136.776.	Waiver must be an intentional, knowing waiver of sentencing facts; not shown here.	Statute requires knowing, written waiver for enhancement facts; not satisfied here.
Impact of Harris vs. SB 528 on sentencing enhancements	Harris is superseded by SB 528; enhancements may be proved by notice and waiver.	Harris remains controlling; defendant did not knowingly waive enhancement rights.	Harris remains controlling; no valid waiver of sentencing enhancement rights found.

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (upward penalty enhancements require jury findings beyond prior convictions)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi applied to sentencing guidelines, except for admitted facts or prior convictions)
State v. Harris, 339 Or. 157 (2005) (juvenile adjudications may enhance sentence if proved to jury or admitted with informed waiver)
State v. Wick, 216 Or. App. 404 (2007) (adequate notice under ORS 136.765 requires writing, timing, and clear content)
State v. Heilman, 339 Or. 661 (2005) (implied waivers of jury rights can arise; but must be scrutinized for knowing relinquishment)
State v. Gornick, 340 Or. 160 (2006) (preservation of jury rights; explicit objections important to determine error)