State v. Wedge
Citation | 293 Or. 598,652 P.2d 773 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Raymond Delbert WEDGE II, Petitioner on Review. CA A21873; SC 28477. |
Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Ernest E. Estes, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender.
William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen.
Following defendant's conviction in a jury trial, the trial court imposed a minimum five-year sentence for the use of a firearm following ORS 161.610(4), 1 even though the jury did not necessarily find that defendant had personally used or threatened to use a firearm. Defendant contends this minimum sentence is unconstitutional as a violation of his right to a jury under the Oregon Constitution. We agree and reverse.
On February 17, 1981 two men disguised with face masks, one armed with a gun and the other with a knife, broke into Dennis McKinley's home and demanded money. The knifeman cut McKinley across the right shoulder. The gunman forced McKinley's wife and child to lie on the floor. McKinley gave them approximately $200, mostly in five dollar bills. The gunman put the money into his pocket. The robbers then demanded more money and marijuana. McKinley went to his bedroom, got his own gun, and shot at the gunman. McKinley saw no blood or other possible evidence of a wound except for a hole in the gunman's jeans. The knifeman then fought with McKinley and subdued him. McKinley escaped out the front door where he met a third masked man who hit him on the head with a gun. McKinley telephoned the police from a neighbor's home at 8:08 p.m. The three robbers left before the police arrived.
The same evening at 8:36 the defendant was admitted to a hospital about ten miles away with a gunshot wound in the lower abdomen. He had a sizable number of five dollar bills with him.
Defendant was charged by indictment with robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and theft in the first degree (two counts) and convicted on all counts following a trial by jury.
The circuit court merged all the convictions and sentenced defendant to 20 years' imprisonment for robbery in the first degree. He ordered defendant to serve a minimum of ten years pursuant to ORS 144.110(2). 2
The indictments 3 in the present case were worded in such a way that a jury could find that defendant was the man with the knife rather than one of the gunman, and still find him guilty of all the offenses. Nor did the defendant admit on the record that he used a firearm so the convictions did not necessarily establish defendant's use of a firearm. At the sentence proceeding this situation was recognized by the court, which then found beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to ORS 161.610(4), that a firearm was used or threatened to be used by the defendant in the commission of these offenses, and imposed a five-year minimum term of imprisonment. 4 Defendant only appeals this five-year minimum term, contending that the finding by the court rather than by a jury of his personal use of a firearm violated his constitutional right to a trial by jury guaranteed by Article I, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution. 5 In State v. Hicks, 38 Or.App. 97, 589 P.2d 1130 (1979), construing a similar statute, former ORS 166.230, the court stated that an enhanced penalty can be given only to a person who has actual physical possession of a gun during the commission of a felony because there is no statutory basis for enhanced penalty based on vicarious liability. We agree with this interpretation. The court would be without authority to sentence defendant if there were no finding he personally used or threatened to use a firearm.
We approve the Court of Appeals explanation of ORS 161.610 in State v. Warner, 52 Or.App. 987, 630 P.2d 385 (1981):
(Footnotes omitted). State v. Warner, supra, 52 Or.App. at 989, 630 P.2d 385.
The court then explained the effect:
(Footnotes omitted). State v. Warner, supra, 52 Or.App. at 991-992, 630 P.2d 385.
The court stated the purposes as:
* * * "State v. Warner, supra, 52 Or.App. at 993, 630 P.2d 385. 6
There is no right to a jury for sentencing under the United States Constitution, even in a capital case. Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 96 S.Ct. 2960, 49 L.Ed.2d 913 (1976). Nor does the Oregon Constitution mandate jury participation in sentencing. State v. Dixon, 238 Or. 121, 124, 393 P.2d 204 (1964). The Kansas Supreme Court, in State v. Mullins, 223 Kan. 798, 800, 577 P.2d 51 (1978), upheld a similar statute explaining:
Defendant argues, however, that State v. Quinn, 290 Or. 383, 623 P.2d 630 (1981), is controlling in the present case. In Quinn this court struck down ORS 163.116 imposing a death sentence for murder as unconstitutional because it violated defendant's right to a trial by jury. The defendant's state of mind was an essential element of homicide, and the statute required the judge, rather than the jury, to determine the greater mental state for which a penalty of death could be imposed. We held in that case that a defendant has a constitutional right to have all elements of the crime (for which a defendant is subject to punishment) decided by a jury. However, in Quinn we recognized that not all enhanced penalty statutes are unconstitutional:
'In our opinion, the words "criminal prosecution," as set forth in Article I, Section 11 of our constitution, refer to establishing before a jury acts declared to be criminal by legislative action. Since proof of prior crimes is not a proper matter in an indictment for a present crime, but only proof that prior punishment has...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Lampert, (CC 0007403M; CA A120055; SC S51716).
...Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution required a jury to decide whether he was a dangerous offender. See State v. Wedge, 293 Or. 598, 607, 652 P.2d 773 (1982) (requiring jury to decide whether defendant used firearm); State v. Quinn, 290 Or. 383, 407, 623 P.2d 630 (1981) (requir......
-
State v. Jacob, 0202-31253.
...Oregon Supreme Court had held unconstitutional the portions of ORS 161.610 (1981) under which defendant was sentenced. State v. Wedge, 293 Or. 598, 652 P.2d 773 (1982). In Wedge , the court held that, under ORS 161.610 (1981) , the use or threatened use of a firearm was in fact "finding......
-
State v. Ice
...factor extends the length of a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum, as the federal courts have. Compare State v. Wedge, 293 Or. 598, 608, 652 P.2d 773 (1982) (holding that defendant's state jury trial right applied to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence even though the tria......
-
Teague v. Palmateer
... 57 P.3d 176 184 Or.App. 577 Scott Lewis TEAGUE, Appellant, . v. . Joan PALMATEER, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. . 00C-12089; A113384. . Court of Appeals of Oregon. . Submitted on Record and Briefs October 1, 2001. . Resubmitted ...Quinn, 290 Or. 383, 623 P.2d 630 (1981), and State v. Wedge, 293 Or. 598, 652 P.2d 773 (1982) . . As noted above, petitioner asserted two bases for his post-conviction claims. First, he ......