State v. Dallabona

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dallabona

872 P.2d 444, 127 Or. App. 236, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 515

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 13, 1994

Docket92-09-5807-C; CA A78299

StatusPublished

This text of 872 P.2d 444 (State v. Dallabona) 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. Dallabona, 872 P.2d 444, 127 Or. App. 236, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 515 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals sentences imposed after his convictions for rape in the first degree, ORS 163.375, and sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, following his pleas of guilty pursuant to plea negotiations. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the court noted that the sexual abuse count would merge with the rape count for sentencing purposes and that defendant’s grid block for rape in the first degree appeared to be 9-E. However, the presentence investigation report placed defendant in grid block 10-C, and the court imposed sentence using that block. Defendant did not object to the sentences.

Defendant now argues that the court erred in sentencing him under crime seriousness category 10, instead of 9, and in imposing a post-prison supervision term of more than 36 months, pursuant to ORS 144.103. Relying on State v. Owens, 112 Or App 462, 829 P2d 726 (1992), he argues that the errors are apparent on the face of the record. However, as noted in State v. Rodriquez, 127 Or App 89, 870 P2d 270 (1994), we decided Owens before the Supreme Court had made it clear that we do not have unbridled discretion to review unpreserved errors but must justify our exercise of discretion. Defendant has not provided a compelling argument for us to review the error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals sentences imposed after his convictions for rape in the first degree, ORS 163.375, and sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, following his pleas of guilty pursuant to plea negotiations. Before accepting defendant’s plea, the court noted that the sexual abuse count would merge with the rape count for sentencing purposes and that defendant’s grid block for rape in the first degree appeared to be 9-E. However, the presentence investigation report placed defendant in grid block 10-C, and the court imposed sentence using that block. Defendant did not object to the sentences.

Defendant now argues that the court erred in sentencing him under crime seriousness category 10, instead of 9, and in imposing a post-prison supervision term of more than 36 months, pursuant to ORS 144.103. Relying on State v. Owens, 112 Or App 462, 829 P2d 726 (1992), he argues that the errors are apparent on the face of the record. However, as noted in State v. Rodriquez, 127 Or App 89, 870 P2d 270 (1994), we decided Owens before the Supreme Court had made it clear that we do not have unbridled discretion to review unpreserved errors but must justify our exercise of discretion. Defendant has not provided a compelling argument for us to review the error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 P.2d 444, 127 Or. App. 236, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dallabona-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack