State v. Braaten

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Braaten

204 P.3d 117, 226 Or. App. 460, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 138

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 11, 2009

Docket05C52601, 05C54468, 06C41139, 06C49896; A134921, A134922, A134923, A134924

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 P.3d 117 (State v. Braaten) 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. Braaten, 204 P.3d 117, 226 Or. App. 460, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 138 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree theft (Counts 1, 2, and 3) and one count of attempted theft. In a separate case, defendant was convicted of second-degree theft. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive durational departure sentences on Counts 1, 2, and 3. The court imposed the sentences to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to the sentence imposed on defendant’s separate second-degree theft conviction. Defendant advances an unpreserved challenge to the trial court’s authority to order that the sentences be served consecutively in the absence of findings of fact by the jury. In light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the trial court did not err.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree theft (Counts 1, 2, and 3) and one count of attempted theft. In a separate case, defendant was convicted of second-degree theft. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive durational departure sentences on Counts 1, 2, and 3. The court imposed the sentences to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to the sentence imposed on defendant’s separate second-degree theft conviction. Defendant advances an unpreserved challenge to the trial court’s authority to order that the sentences be served consecutively in the absence of findings of fact by the jury. In light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the trial court did not err.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 P.3d 117, 226 Or. App. 460, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-braaten-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack