Roman Tatarinov v. Jeff Premo

MEMORANDUM

Roman Tatarinov’s sentence for his conviction for identity theft was enhanced because of his prior involvement in similar activity, a fact found by the sentencing judge but not proven to a jury. Tatarinov claims that this was a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, but he made no objection until his appeal.

The Oregon Court of Appeals considered Tatarinov’s Sixth Amendment argument under Oregon’s plain error rule — Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.45(1)— which considers (1) if there was an obvious constitutional error and (2) whether the court should exercise its discretion to correct the error. See State v. Tatarinov, 202 Or.App. 217 , 120 P.3d 1253, 1254 (2005) (“Tatarinov I ” (per curiam)).

After the Oregon Court of Appeals initially granted relief, the case was remanded by the Oregon Supreme Court for re consideration in light of State v. Ramirez, 343 Or. 505 , 173 P.3d 817 (2007). See State v. Williams, 345 Or. 316 , 195 P.3d 64 (2008). On remand, the Oregon Court of Appeals considered whether, even assuming that there was an obvious constitutional error, it should exercise its discretion to review the claim. State v. Tatarinov, 227 Or.App.…