State v. Grittman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Grittman

125 P.3d 20, 203 Or. App. 120, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1559

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

Docket03C44199; A122233

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 P.3d 20 (State v. Grittman) 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. Grittman, 125 P.3d 20, 203 Or. App. 120, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1559 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. ORS 475.999. The trial court imposed an upward departure sentence based on findings that defendant was on supervision when he committed the offenses and that defendant had a pattern of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence, arguing 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 a departure sentence based on facts that defendant did not admit and that were not found by a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but 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 trial court’s upward departure 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 appeals from a conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school. ORS 475.999. The trial court imposed an upward departure sentence based on findings that defendant was on supervision when he committed the offenses and that defendant had a pattern of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence, arguing 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 a departure sentence based on facts that defendant did not admit and that were not found by a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but 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 trial court’s upward departure 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)

125 P.3d 20, 203 Or. App. 120, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grittman-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack