State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hill

170 P.3d 1082, 215 Or. App. 498, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1455

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 17, 2007

DocketCR0000113; A115930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 P.3d 1082 (State v. Hill) 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. Hill, 170 P.3d 1082, 215 Or. App. 498, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1455 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*499 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, raising several assignments of error. We write only to address defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence and reject defendant’s other contentions without discussion. As explained below, we affirm defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

First-degree sexual abuse is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 75 months’ imprisonment. ORS 137.700. In this case, the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence of 80 months after finding that defendant had persistently been involved in similar crimes, that the victim was particularly vulnerable, and that the offense resulted in permanent injury to the victim. Defendant asserts that an enhanced sentence based on such judicial factfinding violates the rule of law announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). We agree. Defendant is entitled to resentencing because the court imposed an upward departure sentence based on facts not found by the jury or admitted by defendant.

Although defendant’s challenge to his sentence is unpreserved, in State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343, adh’d to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006), rev allowed, 342 Or 256 (2007), we held that the imposition of a departure sentence under similar circumstances constituted plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, 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

*499 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, raising several assignments of error. We write only to address defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence and reject defendant’s other contentions without discussion. As explained below, we affirm defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

First-degree sexual abuse is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 75 months’ imprisonment. ORS 137.700. In this case, the trial court imposed an upward departure sentence of 80 months after finding that defendant had persistently been involved in similar crimes, that the victim was particularly vulnerable, and that the offense resulted in permanent injury to the victim. Defendant asserts that an enhanced sentence based on such judicial factfinding violates the rule of law announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). We agree. Defendant is entitled to resentencing because the court imposed an upward departure sentence based on facts not found by the jury or admitted by defendant.

Although defendant’s challenge to his sentence is unpreserved, in State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343, adh’d to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006), rev allowed, 342 Or 256 (2007), we held that the imposition of a departure sentence under similar circumstances constituted plain error. For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 P.3d 1082, 215 Or. App. 498, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hill-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack