State v. Acklin
This text of 730 P.2d 1288 (State v. Acklin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case presents a sentencing issue under the provisions of ORS 161.610, the so-called “gun minimum” statute.1 Because the trial court misinterpreted the application of that statute, we remand for resentencing.
Defendant was originally charged with the Class B felony of assault in the second degree involving the use of a deadly weapon, a .22 rifle. ORS 163.175. He entered a plea of no contest to the lesser included Class C felony of assault in the third degree. ORS 163.165. The trial court imposed a five-[249]*249year sentence with a two and one-half year minimum, pursuant to ORS 144.110. The court also ordered that defendant serve a five-year minimum term, pursuant to ORS 161.610.
In imposing the five-year minimum, the trial court apparently concluded that defendant’s no contest plea constituted an admission that he had used a firearm during the commission of the assault. Defendant does not contest that point, and it is not an issue on appeal. Quoting ORS 161.610(3), the trial court explained:
“ ‘If a Defendant is convicted of a felony having as an element the Defendant’s use or threatened use of a firearm during the commission of the crime, the Court shall impose at least the minimum term of imprisonment as provided in subsection 4 of this section.’
“I don’t have any discretion whether the State wants to abandon its position or not. I have to, under the law of this State, impose the mandatory minimum. If as an element of Defendant’s offense use or threatened use of a firearm exists.”
Defendant acknowledges that his sentence is authorized by ORS 161.610, but he urges that the trial court should have considered subsection (5) of the statute, which permits the court to suspend or modify the five-year sentence “if it is the first time that the defendant is subject to punishment” under ORS 161.610 and “when the court expressly finds mitigating circumstances justifying [a] lesser sentence.” Here, defendant did make some showing at the sentencing hearing regarding the presence of “mitigating circumstances.”2 However, as noted, the trial court rejected the notion that it had any discretion in the matter.
The state concedes that State v. Larson, 13 Or App 97, 508 P2d 835 (1973), is dispositive of this case. There, we noted that, even though a sentence may be within statutory limits, when it is based on a misapprehension of the choices available to the sentencing court, it cannot be said to reflect a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
[250]*250Accordingly, we remand for resentencing, so that the trial court may properly consider whether the “mitigating circumstances” asserted by defendant justify suspension or modification of the five-year minimum sentence.
Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
730 P.2d 1288, 83 Or. App. 246, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 4405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-acklin-orctapp-1986.