State v. Bittner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Bittner

123 P.3d 380, 202 Or. App. 655, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1486

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

Docket9907-35238; A109428

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 P.3d 380 (State v. Bittner) 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. Bittner, 123 P.3d 380, 202 Or. App. 655, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1486 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault and received an upward departure sentence of 100 months’ imprisonment and 20 months’ post-prison supervision. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $2,538.33. On appeal, defendant challenges both his conviction and sentence. We reject defendant’s challenges to his conviction without discussion.

With respect to his sentence, defendant argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous 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), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant nor found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure — based on its findings that defendant had “prison disciplinary issues” and was on post-prison supervision when he committed the crime — is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s rulings regarding the imposition of restitution and consideration for early release and sentence reductions. We need not address those arguments, given the scope of our remand under ORS 138.222(5). See State v. Smitherman, 200 Or App 383, 114 P3d 540 (2005).

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault and received an upward departure sentence of 100 months’ imprisonment and 20 months’ post-prison supervision. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $2,538.33. On appeal, defendant challenges both his conviction and sentence. We reject defendant’s challenges to his conviction without discussion.

With respect to his sentence, defendant argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous 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), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant nor found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure — based on its findings that defendant had “prison disciplinary issues” and was on post-prison supervision when he committed the crime — is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s rulings regarding the imposition of restitution and consideration for early release and sentence reductions. We need not address those arguments, given the scope of our remand under ORS 138.222(5). See State v. Smitherman, 200 Or App 383, 114 P3d 540 (2005).

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P.3d 380, 202 Or. App. 655, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bittner-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack