State v. Karp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Karp

185 P.3d 553, 220 Or. App. 299, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 728

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 28, 2008

DocketC050534CR; A130751

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 P.3d 553 (State v. Karp) 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. Karp, 185 P.3d 553, 220 Or. App. 299, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*300 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of a number of sex crimes committed against a 10-year-old girl. On appeal, he makes two assignments of error. First, he asserts, the trial court erred in admitting defendant’s out-of-court statements about his having “a thing for little girls.” Second, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing a partial consecutive sentence in the absence of jury findings to support it. Because it is unpreserved, we reject his first claim of error. ORAP 5.45(1). However, we agree that the trial court erred in sentencing and, accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

In State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted, _US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008), the Oregon Supreme Court held that, to comply with the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), a trial court cannot impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) unless the facts required by that statute are submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not occur in this case. The state argues that Ice does not require resentencing in this case because consecutive sentences are authorized “as a matter of law” under ORS 137.123(5)(a) for convictions of “equal seriousness.” We rejected that argument in State v. Loftin, 218 Or App 160, 178 P3d 312 (2008), decided after oral argument in this case. See also State v. Mills, 219 Or App 225, 230, 182 P3d 889 (2008) (same).

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*300 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of a number of sex crimes committed against a 10-year-old girl. On appeal, he makes two assignments of error. First, he asserts, the trial court erred in admitting defendant’s out-of-court statements about his having “a thing for little girls.” Second, he argues that the trial court erred in imposing a partial consecutive sentence in the absence of jury findings to support it. Because it is unpreserved, we reject his first claim of error. ORAP 5.45(1). However, we agree that the trial court erred in sentencing and, accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

In State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted, _US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008), the Oregon Supreme Court held that, to comply with the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), a trial court cannot impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5) unless the facts required by that statute are submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not occur in this case. The state argues that Ice does not require resentencing in this case because consecutive sentences are authorized “as a matter of law” under ORS 137.123(5)(a) for convictions of “equal seriousness.” We rejected that argument in State v. Loftin, 218 Or App 160, 178 P3d 312 (2008), decided after oral argument in this case. See also State v. Mills, 219 Or App 225, 230, 182 P3d 889 (2008) (same).

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 P.3d 553, 220 Or. App. 299, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-karp-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack