State v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bailey

142 P.3d 512, 207 Or. App. 522, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1233

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 30, 2006

Docket03C-42661; A122767

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 P.3d 512 (State v. Bailey) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Bailey, 142 P.3d 512, 207 Or. App. 522, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1233 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*523 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, former ORS 475.995. 1 On appeal, defendant challenges one of the convictions as well as his sentences. We reject without discussion defendant’s challenge to his conviction. The sentencing court imposed an upward durational departure sentence on the delivery of a controlled substance convictions based on findings that defendant was on post-prison supervision at the time of the offense and that prior incarcerations and supervision had not deterred his criminal conduct. Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. We agree. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343, adh’d to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006). For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because that error requires resentencing, we do not reach defendant’s remaining arguments concerning his sentences.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1

ORS 475.995 was renumbered ORS 475.906 in 2005.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*523 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, former ORS 475.995. 1 On appeal, defendant challenges one of the convictions as well as his sentences. We reject without discussion defendant’s challenge to his conviction. The sentencing court imposed an upward durational departure sentence on the delivery of a controlled substance convictions based on findings that defendant was on post-prison supervision at the time of the offense and that prior incarcerations and supervision had not deterred his criminal conduct. Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. We agree. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343, adh’d to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006). For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because that error requires resentencing, we do not reach defendant’s remaining arguments concerning his sentences.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1

ORS 475.995 was renumbered ORS 475.906 in 2005.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 P.3d 512, 207 Or. App. 522, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bailey-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack