State v. Yashin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “We cannot say beyond dispute that ‘the fact of a prior conviction’ excludes subsidiary fact-finding necessary to the determination that a conviction is, as a legal matter, usable for the purpose of increasing a sentence.”
• ‘We cannot say beyond dispute that ‘the fact of a prior conviction’ excludes subsidiary fact-finding necessary to the determination that a conviction is, as a legal matter, usable for the purpose of increasing a sentence.”
• “We cannot say beyond dispute that ‘the fact of a prior conviction’ excludes subsidiary fact-finding necessary to the determination that a conviction is, as a legal matter, usable for the purpose of increasing a sentence.”
• “[W]hether the trial court’s factual finding that defendant’s * * * convictions arose from separate criminal episodes * * * fell within Apprendi’s exception for ‘the fact of a prior conviction’ is not a question to which the answer is obvious [.]”
• declining to treat as “plain error” similar unpreserved arguments
• declining to reach similar unpreserved arguments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).