State v. Dehut

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dehut

131 P.3d 820, 204 Or. App. 683, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 312

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 15, 2006

Docket03C-44670; A124718

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 P.3d 820 (State v. Dehut) 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. Dehut, 131 P.3d 820, 204 Or. App. 683, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of being an inmate in possession of a weapon. ORS 166.275. The trial court imposed a departure sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment based on findings that defendant had persistently been involved in similar offenses and that prior sanctions had not deterred defendant’s criminal conduct. On appeal, defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of being an inmate in possession of a weapon. ORS 166.275. The trial court imposed a departure sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment based on findings that defendant had persistently been involved in similar offenses and that prior sanctions had not deterred defendant’s criminal conduct. On appeal, defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 P.3d 820, 204 Or. App. 683, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dehut-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack