State v. Lennon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Lennon

129 P.3d 209, 204 Or. App. 111, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 103

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 1, 2006

Docket02C-46833; A122082

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 P.3d 209 (State v. Lennon) 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. Lennon, 129 P.3d 209, 204 Or. App. 111, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*112 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and received an upward departure sentence of 80 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ post-prison supervision. He challenges both his conviction and sentence. We reject without discussion defendant’s arguments regarding his conviction.

With respect to his sentence, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence based on its finding that “prior incarcerations, probations, paroles, sanctions haven’t worked” was erroneous 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), because the sentence was 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 imposition of 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 discussed 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

*112 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and received an upward departure sentence of 80 months’ imprisonment and 36 months’ post-prison supervision. He challenges both his conviction and sentence. We reject without discussion defendant’s arguments regarding his conviction.

With respect to his sentence, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence based on its finding that “prior incarcerations, probations, paroles, sanctions haven’t worked” was erroneous 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), because the sentence was 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 imposition of 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 discussed in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 P.3d 209, 204 Or. App. 111, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lennon-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack