Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hutchinson v. Nooth

United States District Court, D. Oregon

March 29, 2018

LARRY DEAN HUTCHINSON, Petitioner,
v.
MARK NOOTH, Respondent.

          Nell Brown Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorney for Petitioner

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Samuel A. Kubernick, Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Attorneys for Respondent

          SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION AND ORDER

          Marco A. Hernandez United States District Judge.

         On October 28, 2016, the Court denied relief on all of Petitioner's claims with a single exception: whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to argue that the State had not proven the facts underlying Petitioner's departure sentences beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court allowed an opportunity for further briefing, and now addresses Petitioner's final claim on its merits.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner pled guilty to four counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and the trial court imposed consecutive departure sentences totaling 96 months in prison. It justified the imposition of the departure sentences by finding that Petitioner:

engaged in persistent involvement in similar offenses based on the fact that he has been involved in a murder, a robbery which are person crimes, and was caught with a sawed-off shotgun while on release. . . .
* * * * *
. . . has had prior sanctions that have not deterred his conduct
* * * * *
. . . incarceration is necessary for the public safety and based on the fact that the [Petitioner's] lack of ability to understand the dangerousness of the weapons that he kept coming into contact with even while he was out on release.

         Respondent's Exhibit 109, pp. 20-22.

         On appeal, the parties jointly moved to vacate the trial court's Judgment and remand the case for resentencing because his 96-month sentence exceeded Oregon's 200% and 400% rules. Respondent's Exhibit 112. The Oregon Court of Appeals granted the parties' motion, leading to a resentencing proceeding in which the trial court imposed consecutive departure sentence totaling 66 months in prison. Respondent's Exhibit 144, pp. 9-10.

         In his sole remaining claim, Petitioner argues that his trial attorney should have argued that the State had not proven the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.