State v. Bartley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bartley

184 P.3d 1225, 220 Or. App. 125, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 651

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 14, 2008

DocketCR0501410, CR0600024 A132272 (Control) A132273

StatusPublished

This text of 184 P.3d 1225 (State v. Bartley) 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. Bartley, 184 P.3d 1225, 220 Or. App. 125, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*126 PER CURIAM

This is a consolidated appeal involving two criminal cases. In Case Number A132272, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance. In Case Number A132273, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance. At sentencing on both cases, defendant’s attorney did not appear because of health problems. Defendant asked for a setover, and the trial court granted the request. The trial court reset the sentencing on two additional occasions, both because of defendant’s counsel’s health problems. At a fourth sentencing hearing, counsel again did not appear because of health problems, and defendant asked for a setover to obtain new counsel. The court granted the request. At a fifth sentencing hearing, counsel did not appear and defendant had not yet retained new counsel. Defendant requested another setover, which the court denied. The court then imposed sentence. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him counsel at the sentencing hearing. The state concedes the error and agrees that the sentences should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. We agree that the trial court erred.

Sentences in both cases vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*126 PER CURIAM

This is a consolidated appeal involving two criminal cases. In Case Number A132272, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance. In Case Number A132273, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of a controlled substance. At sentencing on both cases, defendant’s attorney did not appear because of health problems. Defendant asked for a setover, and the trial court granted the request. The trial court reset the sentencing on two additional occasions, both because of defendant’s counsel’s health problems. At a fourth sentencing hearing, counsel again did not appear because of health problems, and defendant asked for a setover to obtain new counsel. The court granted the request. At a fifth sentencing hearing, counsel did not appear and defendant had not yet retained new counsel. Defendant requested another setover, which the court denied. The court then imposed sentence. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying him counsel at the sentencing hearing. The state concedes the error and agrees that the sentences should be vacated and remanded for resentencing. We agree that the trial court erred.

Sentences in both cases vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 P.3d 1225, 220 Or. App. 125, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bartley-orctapp-2008.