State v. Her

341 Or. App. 368

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: A182635
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

368 June 18, 2025 No. 551

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SONNY HER, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 23CR18844, 23CR33575; A182635 (Control), A182636

Beth L. Roberts, Judge. Submitted on May 9, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and James Brewer, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. ORTEGA, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 341 Or App 368 (2025) 369

ORTEGA, P. J. In this consolidated appeal from a judgment of con- viction, defendant challenges (1) the trial court’s imposition of a one-year driver’s license revocation as part of his sen- tence for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences on the UUV conviction and on revocation of defendant’s probation for possession of a controlled substance. In his first assignment of error, defendant argues that the sentencing court lacked authority to impose the license revocation based on his admission at sentencing to operating a motor vehicle because doing so is not one of the statutory elements of UUV. We rejected that argu- ment in State v. Schriner, 336 Or App 873, 885, 562 P3d 296 (2024), rev allowed, 373 Or 712 (May 15, 2025) (holding that “the court’s determination whether a qualifying convic- tion requires it to order the revocation of a person’s driver’s license must be based on the entire factual record support- ing the conviction” and that the defendant’s factual admis- sion to knowingly operating a vehicle without consent of the owner was sufficient to support a revocation). Defendant did not preserve his second assignment of error on appeal, and we conclude that no plain error occurred on this record in imposing consecutive sentences in his two cases. The sentence on the UUV conviction was imposed consecutively to the sentence for possession of a controlled substance, and those crimes involved separate victims for purposes of Article I, section 44(1)(b), of the Oregon Constitution. See State v. Lane, 357 Or 619, 638, 355 P3d 914 (2015) (a sentencing court has authority under Article I, section 44(1)(b), to order a defendant to serve a term of imprisonment imposed on a felony conviction upon revocation of probation consecutively to another, previously imposed sentence, when the underlying crimes have differ- ent victims). Consequently, it is at least arguable that the sentencing court had discretion under that provision to impose the consecutive-sentence order at issue, despite any limitation otherwise imposed by OAR 213-012-0040(2). See State v. Gatewood, 300 Or App 21, 30, 452 P3d 1046 (2019), rev den, 366 Or 257 (2020) (consecutive-sentence order was 370 State v. Her

proper based on different-victim rationale where one crime had a person as the victim and the other had the state as the victim). Defendant’s arguments to the contrary do not per- suade us that the imposition of consecutive sentences was plainly erroneous. Affirmed.