State v. Dow

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dow

186 P.3d 326, 220 Or. App. 444, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 793

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 11, 2008

Docket031135982; A130283

StatusPublished

This text of 186 P.3d 326 (State v. Dow) 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. Dow, 186 P.3d 326, 220 Or. App. 444, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 793 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for robbery in the third degree, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and in giving a special jury instruction requested by the state. We reject those assignments of error without discussion. In a supplemental brief, defendant also raises a preserved challenge to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings to support such sentences. In light of State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted,_US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008), we agree that the trial court erred in that regard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395 (Count 1); harassment, ORS 166.065 (Count 3); theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045 (Count 4); attempted theft in the second degree, ORS 161.405(2)(e) and ORS 164.045 (Count 5); and two counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800 (Counts 2 and 6). Counts 1 and 3 were tried to a jury; defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining counts. Based on its finding that Counts 2 and 4 arose from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct separate from Counts 1,3,5, and 6, the trial court directed that the sentences on the latter counts rim consecutively to those on the former. ORS 137.123(2). Defendant argues, and the state concedes (albeit contesting that Ice is correctly decided), that, under Ice, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences based on its own findings of fact, rather than on facts found by a jury. We agree. In Ice, 343 Or at 267, the Supreme Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a defendant with a right to jury determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, of facts used to impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for robbery in the third degree, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and in giving a special jury instruction requested by the state. We reject those assignments of error without discussion. In a supplemental brief, defendant also raises a preserved challenge to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings to support such sentences. In light of State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted,_US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008), we agree that the trial court erred in that regard. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm.

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395 (Count 1); harassment, ORS 166.065 (Count 3); theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045 (Count 4); attempted theft in the second degree, ORS 161.405(2)(e) and ORS 164.045 (Count 5); and two counts of identity theft, ORS 165.800 (Counts 2 and 6). Counts 1 and 3 were tried to a jury; defendant pleaded guilty to the remaining counts. Based on its finding that Counts 2 and 4 arose from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct separate from Counts 1,3,5, and 6, the trial court directed that the sentences on the latter counts rim consecutively to those on the former. ORS 137.123(2). Defendant argues, and the state concedes (albeit contesting that Ice is correctly decided), that, under Ice, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences based on its own findings of fact, rather than on facts found by a jury. We agree. In Ice, 343 Or at 267, the Supreme Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a defendant with a right to jury determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, of facts used to impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 P.3d 326, 220 Or. App. 444, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dow-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack