context: We note that several courts have come to the same or a similar conclusion.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 842 N.E.2d 325, 325
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that judge could rely on presentenee report to determine that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense, but declining to base this holding the theory that "probation is derivative of criminal history"
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Corchado, 427 F.3d 815, 820 (10th Cir.2005) (holding that the prior-conviction exception to Blakely permits a sentencing judge to enhance a defendant’s sentence based on the fact that the defendant was on probation and under supervision at the time of the commission of the offense); United States v. Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 142 (2d Cir. 2005) (upholding trial judge’s consideration of defendant’s probationary status because “the conviction itself and the type and length of a sentence imposed seem logically to fall within [the prior conviction] exception”); cf. Ryle, 842 N.E.2d at 325, 323 n. 5 (holding that judge could rely on presentenee report to determine that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense, but declining to base this holding the theory that “probation is derivative of criminal history”).
citation_b.signal: but see
citation_b.parenthetical: striking down sentencing increase where judge found that defendant was on supervision because the increased sentence was based on the additional fact-finding that "parole or probation failed to deter defendant from committing further offenses"
citation_b.sentence: But see State v. Jenkins, 199 Or.App. 384, 111 P.3d 782, 782 (2005) (striking down sentencing increase where judge found that defendant was on supervision because the increased sentence was based on the additional fact-finding that “parole or probation failed to deter defendant from committing further offenses”) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Leach, 325 F.Supp.2d 557, 561 (E.D.Pa.2004) (concluding that “Blakely renders [it] impermissible” for the judge to consider the fact that the defendant was on probation at the time he committed the offense).