State v. Sanchez
238 Or. App. 259
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Defendant Sanchez challenged upward departure sentences after a resentencing trial following post-conviction relief.
- Enhancement factors were notified by written letters (and later an email) but not pleaded in an indictment or filed with the court.
- Trial court allowed enhancement facts to be tried to the resentencing jury, and the jury found multiple enhancement facts existed.
- The court imposed upward departure sentences based on those enhancement facts, concluding any single factor would suffice for departure.
- Defendant argued the enhancement facts must be pleaded or found by a grand jury under Oregon Constitution provisions.
- The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the arguments to require indictment-paired enhancement facts and addressing other issues only briefly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enhancement facts used to impose upward departure must be pleaded | Sanchez (state) argues enhancement facts are sentencing matters, not required in indictment | Sanchez contends enhancement facts are elements requiring grand jury indictment | No; enhancement factors need not be pleaded in indictment; permissible for jury to decide at resentencing |
| Whether the jury could reach a nonunanimous verdict on enhancement facts | (not stated separately) State argues permissible under precedent | Sanchez argues issue is not fully argued here | Affirmed without discussion; rejected as a separate basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gill v. Lampert, 205 Or.App. 90 (2006) (whether aggravating factors must be pleaded in indictment under federal constitutions; held not required)
- State v. Wagner, 305 Or. 115 (1988) (indictment need not plead all ultimate facts for a sentence; deliberation not required as element of aggravator)
- State v. Johnson, 340 Or. 319 (2006) (death penalty factors increase punishment but need not be in indictment)
- State v. Williams, 237 Or.App. 377 (2010) (sentencing subcategory facts need not be pleaded; not essential to show offense)
- State v. Smith, 182 Or. 497 (1948) (indictment must inform accused of charges; pleading must be understandable)
- State v. Sawatzky, 339 Or. 689 (2005) (Apprendi/Blakely do not alter indictment requirements for offenses)