State of Oregon, Respondent on Review v. Thomas Eugene Ice, Petitioner on Review

Summary

The court held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find facts that Oregon law makes necessary for imposing consecutive sentences when those findings increase the defendant's aggregate punishment beyond what the jury's verdict alone authorizes. It rejected the defendant's unpreserved challenge to his upward-departure sentences and held that the Oregon Constitution did not independently require jury findings for the consecutive-sentencing factors at issue. The Court of Appeals and trial-court judgments were reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing. Kistler, J., dissenting, joined by Balmer, J., would have limited the federal rule to enhancements beyond the statutory maximum for a single offense and left consecutive-sentencing decisions to trial judges.