State v. Jordan

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Jordan

136 P.3d 1198, 206 Or. App. 517, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 812

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 14, 2006

Docket03084124C; A123147

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 P.3d 1198 (State v. Jordan) 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. Jordan, 136 P.3d 1198, 206 Or. App. 517, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 812 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*518 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of felony stalking, ORS 163.732(2)(b), and raises several assignments of error challenging his sentence. Because we agree with one of defendant’s arguments, we need not reach the rest of them. The sentencing court imposed an upward durational departure sentence based on a finding that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses. 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 that 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 defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. We agree. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006). For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*518 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of felony stalking, ORS 163.732(2)(b), and raises several assignments of error challenging his sentence. Because we agree with one of defendant’s arguments, we need not reach the rest of them. The sentencing court imposed an upward durational departure sentence based on a finding that defendant had been persistently involved in similar offenses. 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 that 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 defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. We agree. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006). For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 P.3d 1198, 206 Or. App. 517, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jordan-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack