Summary
upholding State v. Wagner, 305 Or. 115, 752 P.2d 1136, and related decisions, reasoning that, “as a matter of state constitutional law, the legislature defines the elements of the offense that must be pleaded in an indictment and * * * as a matter of legislative intent, a crime does not include sentence enhancement facts”; holding that the jury trial, notice, and grand jury provisions of Article I, section 11, and Article VII (Amended), section 5, do not require that enhancement facts be alleged by indictment, nor do they require the grand jury to find or plead sentence enhancement facts
Summary of this case from State v. WorthOpinion
(CC 090130185 CA A144138 SC S059760).
2013-12-12
STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Leonard Lloyd REINKE, Petitioner on Review.
On petitioner on review's petition for reconsideration filed October 7, 2013; considered and under advisement on November 19, 2013.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Deputy Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, filed the petition for reconsideration. With him on the petition was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender.
No appearance contra.
Before BALMER, Chief Justice, and KISTLER, WALTERS, LINDER, and LANDAU, Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, Richard C. Baldwin, Judge. 245 Or.App. 33, 260 P.3d 820 (2011).
Brewer and Baldwin, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Reinke, 354 Or. 98, 309 P.3d 1059 (2013), which affirmed the Court of Appeals decision and the trial court's judgment. As defendant correctly notes, the Court of Appeals decision affirmed the trial court's judgment in every respect except one. The Court of Appeals “reversed and remanded [the trial court's judgment] for resentencing” because count 15 of the indictment did not include a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration, but “otherwise affirmed” the judgment. State v. Reinke, 245 Or.App. 33, 34, 260 P.3d 820 (2011). The state had conceded in the Court of Appeals that the trial court had erred in not including a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration on count 15, and it did not challenge that aspect of the Court of Appeals decision on review. We accordingly allow the petition for reconsideration and modify our disposition of this case as follows: The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is adhered to as modified.