United States Supreme Court
Oregon v. Ice, 07-901
In the context of cases involving defendants who have been tried and convicted of multiple offenses, the Court rules that a state's practice of constraining judges' discretion by requiring them to find certain facts before imposing consecutive sentences, rather than concurrent sentences, does not violate the Sixth Amendment as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490, and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296.
Appellate Information
- Decided 01/14/2009
- Published 01/14/2009
Judges
Court
- United States Supreme Court