State v. Coronado

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Coronado

838 P.2d 641, 115 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1762

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 30, 1992

Docket91C-20837; CA A71619

StatusPublished

This text of 838 P.2d 641 (State v. Coronado) 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. Coronado, 838 P.2d 641, 115 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1762 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. His criminal history and the crime seriousness placed him in grid block 4-G, which carries a presumptive probation sentence. The sentencing court imposed a dispositional and upward departure of 12 months on count I, 4 months on count II and 4 months on count III, all to run consecutively. Defendant appeals, contending that the court failed to find substantial and compelling reasons to support the departure. We remand for resentencing.

In Statev. Wilson, 111 Or App 147, 151, 826 P2d 1010 (1992), we held:

“[W]e review the explanation of why the circumstances are so exceptional that imposition of the presumptive sentence would not accomplish the purposes of the guidelines. If the explanation does not demonstrate that, we must remand for resentencing. ORS 138.222(5).”

We review only the sentencing court’s factual basis and reasons for the departure, not the decision whether to depart. Here, the sentencing court simply acknowledged that it had listened to the arguments from both sides and then adopted the state’s recommendation. We are not able to review the court’s reasons for departure on this record. OAR 253-08-001.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. His criminal history and the crime seriousness placed him in grid block 4-G, which carries a presumptive probation sentence. The sentencing court imposed a dispositional and upward departure of 12 months on count I, 4 months on count II and 4 months on count III, all to run consecutively. Defendant appeals, contending that the court failed to find substantial and compelling reasons to support the departure. We remand for resentencing.

In Statev. Wilson, 111 Or App 147, 151, 826 P2d 1010 (1992), we held:

“[W]e review the explanation of why the circumstances are so exceptional that imposition of the presumptive sentence would not accomplish the purposes of the guidelines. If the explanation does not demonstrate that, we must remand for resentencing. ORS 138.222(5).”

We review only the sentencing court’s factual basis and reasons for the departure, not the decision whether to depart. Here, the sentencing court simply acknowledged that it had listened to the arguments from both sides and then adopted the state’s recommendation. We are not able to review the court’s reasons for departure on this record. OAR 253-08-001.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 P.2d 641, 115 Or. App. 386, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coronado-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack