State v. Carson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Carson

156 P.3d 71, 211 Or. App. 606, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 28, 2007

Docket04CR1078; A128021

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 P.3d 71 (State v. Carson) 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. Carson, 156 P.3d 71, 211 Or. App. 606, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 408 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*607 PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse, one count of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, and one count of first-degree sodomy. For each conviction, the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to ORS 137.700. The court also ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, based on its determination that the crimes of conviction did not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. ORS 137.123(2). Defendant’s total term of imprisonment was 275 months.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), by imposing consecutive sentences based on facts that he did not admit and that were not found by a jury. In State v. Tanner, 210 Or App 70, 150 P3d 31 (2006), we held that the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5) based on facts found by the trial court does not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment principles articulated in Apprendi and Blakely. Although Tanner involved a challenge to consecutive sentences imposed pursuant to ORS 137.123(5), the reasoning of that case applies with equal force in the context of a challenge to sentences imposed pursuant ORS 137.123(2).

Affirmed.

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

*607 PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of one count of first-degree sexual abuse, one count of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, and one count of first-degree sodomy. For each conviction, the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to ORS 137.700. The court also ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, based on its determination that the crimes of conviction did not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. ORS 137.123(2). Defendant’s total term of imprisonment was 275 months.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), by imposing consecutive sentences based on facts that he did not admit and that were not found by a jury. In State v. Tanner, 210 Or App 70, 150 P3d 31 (2006), we held that the imposition of consecutive sentences pursuant to ORS 137.123(5) based on facts found by the trial court does not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment principles articulated in Apprendi and Blakely. Although Tanner involved a challenge to consecutive sentences imposed pursuant to ORS 137.123(5), the reasoning of that case applies with equal force in the context of a challenge to sentences imposed pursuant ORS 137.123(2).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 P.3d 71, 211 Or. App. 606, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carson-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack