Sixth Amendment Apprendi Issue Revisited in Oregon v. Ice
On Tuesday, October 14, 2008, the United States Supreme Court once again delved into the Apprendi world when it heard oral argument in the case Oregon v. Ice. At the heart of the case is the issue of whether a court imposing consecutive sentences violates the Sixth Amendment.
The Facts and Decision Below
Thomas Eugene Ice was convicted in Oregon of two counts of first-degree burglary, and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Oregon prosecutors alleged that, on separate occasions, Ice entered the apartment of a neighbor and fondled an 11-year-old girl. Police later determined Ice was responsible for the crimes and he was then arrested.
Ice was indicted on six separate offenses, which included the burglaries and the molestation counts. Following a jury trial, he was convicted on all six counts. According to Oregon law, sentences imposed for multiple crimes shall be served concurrently, unless the court finds that the offenses did not occur as part of the same course of conduct.
The court found that the convictions for the burglaries and sex crimes were the result of separate incidents, and imposed consecutive sentences which resulted in Ice being sentenced to over 28 years.
Shortly after the state court sentenced Ice, the United States Supreme Court decided the Apprendi case. Ice’s attorneys filed a sentencing addendum, claiming that Apprendi meant that only the jury could consider factors which could result in a more severe sentence. The court rejected the argument, and instead followed the state’s recommendations for consecutive sentencing.
Ice was much more fortunate at the appellate level where the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the consecutive sentences and remanded the case for resentencing. The court found that any sentencing determination that results in a longer total sentence, based on a judge’s factual findings, violates the jury trial right.
High Court grants Certiorari
The decision did not rest well with Oregon prosecutors and they requested that the United States Supreme Court grant certiorari in order to decide the dispute. Although the face of the High Court has changed somewhat since the Apprendi decision, the majority that ruled in favor of that case is still intact. Will any of the justices sway in their decision of Ice? It will certainly be exciting to see the outcome.