Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:


Oregon v. Ice

Docket No.: 07-901
Certiorari Granted: 3/17/2008
Argued: October 14, 2008
Decided: January 14, 2009

PartyNames: Oregon v. Thomas Eugene Ice
Petitioner: Oregon
Respondent: Thomas Eugene Ice

Court Below: Supreme Court of Oregon

Thomas Eugene Ice
555 U.S. ____ (2009)
Consideration Limited:

GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in <span style="font-style: italic;">Apprendi v. New Jersey</span>, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and <span style="font-style: italic;">Blakely v. Washington</span>, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), requires that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.

Question Presented:

Whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), is violated by the imposition of consecutive sentences based on the sentencing judge's determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.


Do consecutive sentences imposed upon a criminal defendant based on factual findings made by a judge, rather than jury, violate the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Holding: judgment reversed and remanded
Vote: 5-4
Opinion By:
Read OREGON V. ICE opinion (PDF)

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/supremec/public_html/supremecourtobserver.com/code/sofunctionsndb.php on line 1145

Other Resources for Oregon v. Ice: