State v. Cordova-Lopez
This text of 838 P.2d 644 (State v. Cordova-Lopez) 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.
Opinion
Defendant pleaded guilty to 5 charges and was sentenced as a dangerous offender on each conviction. The sentences were imposed under the sentencing guidelines, so appellate review is governed by ORS 138.222.
When a sentencing court imposes an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence in lieu of a determinate sentence under the guidelines, the court is required to state what presumptive sentence would otherwise have been imposed. That presumptive sentence becomes, in effect, the minimum dangerous offender sentence. State v. Serhienko, 111 Or App 604, 826 P2d 114 (1992). The court imposed departure sentences as the minimum sentences. The state concedes that that was error, and we accept the concession.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
838 P.2d 644, 115 Or. App. 754, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cordova-lopez-orctapp-1992.