State v. Hutchison

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hutchison

121 P.3d 698, 202 Or. App. 213, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1335

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 12, 2005

Docket03C-50600; A124500

StatusPublished

This text of 121 P.3d 698 (State v. Hutchison) 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. Hutchison, 121 P.3d 698, 202 Or. App. 213, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1335 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of third-degree sodomy and received an upward departure sentence of 28 months of incarceration based on findings that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses and that prior sanctions had failed to deter him. Defendant argues 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 were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he 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 sentence 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 was convicted of third-degree sodomy and received an upward departure sentence of 28 months of incarceration based on findings that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses and that prior sanctions had failed to deter him. Defendant argues 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 were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Although he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he 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 sentence 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)

121 P.3d 698, 202 Or. App. 213, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hutchison-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack