State v. Hostetter

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hostetter

865 P.2d 485, 125 Or. App. 491, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2123

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 22, 1993

DocketCR90-551A; CA A74680

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 865 P.2d 485 (State v. Hostetter) 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. Hostetter, 865 P.2d 485, 125 Or. App. 491, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2123 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

*493 De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, murder, ORS 163.115(l)(a), and sentenced to life in prison with a 25-year minimum term. After defendant filed his appeal challenging the imposition of sentence under ORS 163.115(3), the Supreme Court decided State v. Morgan, 316 Or 553, 856 P2d 612 (1993). Under Morgan, defendant’s 25-year minimum term under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c) is valid.

The state argues that defendant’s life term is also valid, because the court made departure findings that defendant did not challenge, and defendant did not argue that a “life sentence” could not be imposed as a departure sentence under ORS 163.115(3)(a). Therefore, the state contends, under State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993), we may not review the life term.

Farmer does not preclude review here. In Farmer,

“the trial court applied the sentencing guidelines and decided, based on aggravating factors, to impose a departure sentence of life imprisonment with a 2 5-year minimum sentence pursuant to ORS 163.115(3). Defendant did not object.” 317 Or at 222. (Footnote omitted.)

Although it is not entirely clear how the Supreme Court viewed the life sentence, see State v. Petty, 124 Or App 574, 576, 863 P2d 503 (1993), it declined to review that sentence, because the defendant in Farmer had not objected. 1

Here, the court clearly imposed sentence under ORS 163.115, and defendant objected. The aggravating factors cited by the court were alternatively given in order to support a departure had it imposed sentence under the guidelines. However, it did not impose a departure sentence. We may review defendant’s challenge to the life term. Under State v. Morgan, supra, the life term is reversible error. We remand for resentencing with instructions to delete the sentence of life imprisonment and to impose a judgment for post-prison supervision for the remainder of defendant’s life under OAR 253-05-004. Defendant’s 25-year prison term is lawful.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

1

The court in Farmer apparently reviewed the 25-year minimum, because it upheld that sentence on the basis of State v. Morgan, supra.

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

*493 De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, murder, ORS 163.115(l)(a), and sentenced to life in prison with a 25-year minimum term. After defendant filed his appeal challenging the imposition of sentence under ORS 163.115(3), the Supreme Court decided State v. Morgan, 316 Or 553, 856 P2d 612 (1993). Under Morgan, defendant’s 25-year minimum term under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c) is valid.

The state argues that defendant’s life term is also valid, because the court made departure findings that defendant did not challenge, and defendant did not argue that a “life sentence” could not be imposed as a departure sentence under ORS 163.115(3)(a). Therefore, the state contends, under State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993), we may not review the life term.

Farmer does not preclude review here. In Farmer,

“the trial court applied the sentencing guidelines and decided, based on aggravating factors, to impose a departure sentence of life imprisonment with a 2 5-year minimum sentence pursuant to ORS 163.115(3). Defendant did not object.” 317 Or at 222. (Footnote omitted.)

Although it is not entirely clear how the Supreme Court viewed the life sentence, see State v. Petty, 124 Or App 574, 576, 863 P2d 503 (1993), it declined to review that sentence, because the defendant in Farmer had not objected. 1

Here, the court clearly imposed sentence under ORS 163.115, and defendant objected. The aggravating factors cited by the court were alternatively given in order to support a departure had it imposed sentence under the guidelines. However, it did not impose a departure sentence. We may review defendant’s challenge to the life term. Under State v. Morgan, supra, the life term is reversible error. We remand for resentencing with instructions to delete the sentence of life imprisonment and to impose a judgment for post-prison supervision for the remainder of defendant’s life under OAR 253-05-004. Defendant’s 25-year prison term is lawful.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

1

The court in Farmer apparently reviewed the 25-year minimum, because it upheld that sentence on the basis of State v. Morgan, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 P.2d 485, 125 Or. App. 491, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hostetter-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack