State v. Cervantes

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cervantes

418 P.3d 776, 292 Or. App. 198

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 31, 2018

DocketA163274

StatusPublished

This text of 418 P.3d 776 (State v. Cervantes) 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. Cervantes, 418 P.3d 776, 292 Or. App. 198 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*777 *199Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after his resentencing on remand in State v. Cervantes , 271 Or. App. 234, 351 P.3d 761 (2015). Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to apply the "shift-to-I" rule in calculating his sentences on his convictions for third-degree sodomy in Counts 22 and 23, which involved the same criminal episode and the same victim. See OAR 213-012-0020. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred by not applying the "shift-to-I" rule in calculating his criminal history score on Count 23 when the court ordered the sentence on that count to be served consecutively with the sentence on Count 22. See State v. Monro , 256 Or. App. 493, 495, 301 P.3d 435, rev. den. , 354 Or. 148, 311 P.3d 525 (2013) (explaining "shift-to-I" rule and that it was plain error to not apply the rule in that case). The state concedes that the court plainly erred. We accept the state's concession and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error because the state has no interest in our refusing to correct the error, and we perceive no strategic or tactical reason for defendant's attorney to not have raised the issue at sentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*777 *199Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction entered after his resentencing on remand in State v. Cervantes , 271 Or. App. 234, 351 P.3d 761 (2015). Defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to apply the "shift-to-I" rule in calculating his sentences on his convictions for third-degree sodomy in Counts 22 and 23, which involved the same criminal episode and the same victim. See OAR 213-012-0020. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court erred by not applying the "shift-to-I" rule in calculating his criminal history score on Count 23 when the court ordered the sentence on that count to be served consecutively with the sentence on Count 22. See State v. Monro , 256 Or. App. 493, 495, 301 P.3d 435, rev. den. , 354 Or. 148, 311 P.3d 525 (2013) (explaining "shift-to-I" rule and that it was plain error to not apply the rule in that case). The state concedes that the court plainly erred. We accept the state's concession and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error because the state has no interest in our refusing to correct the error, and we perceive no strategic or tactical reason for defendant's attorney to not have raised the issue at sentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 P.3d 776, 292 Or. App. 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cervantes-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack