State v. Braaten

204 P.3d 117, 226 Or. App. 460, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 138
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided March 11, 2009·No. 05C52601, 05C54468, 06C41139, 06C49896; A134921, A134922, A134923, A134924·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

204 P.3d 117 (State v. Braaten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Braaten
204 P.3d 117 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)