State v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Lee

123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 665, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

Docket0311-35840; A124834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 P.3d 378 (State v. Lee) 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. Lee, 123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 665, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1503 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*666 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault, ORS 163.175, attempted first-degree assault, ORS 161.405 and ORS 163.185, coercion, ORS 163.275, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On the conviction for second-degree assault, the court imposed an upward departure sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ post-prison supervision based on its findings that defendant was persistently involved in similar offenses and incarceration and probation had not deterred his conduct. On appeal, 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 admitted by defendant nor found by a jury.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, 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.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*666 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of second-degree assault, ORS 163.175, attempted first-degree assault, ORS 161.405 and ORS 163.185, coercion, ORS 163.275, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On the conviction for second-degree assault, the court imposed an upward departure sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ post-prison supervision based on its findings that defendant was persistently involved in similar offenses and incarceration and probation had not deterred his conduct. On appeal, 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 admitted by defendant nor found by a jury.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, 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.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 665, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lee-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack