State v. Maddox

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Maddox

129 P.3d 786, 204 Or. App. 421, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 193

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 15, 2006

Docket0205-33049; A120902

StatusPublished

This text of 129 P.3d 786 (State v. Maddox) 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. Maddox, 129 P.3d 786, 204 Or. App. 421, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. ORS 475.992. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle. We reject defendant’s arguments on that issue without discussion.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on one of the counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. He argues that the trial court’s upward departure sentence was erroneous under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), andApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), because it was based on facts that were neither 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. Allen, 198 Or App 392, 108 P3d 651, adh’d to as clarified on recons, 202 Or App 565 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure, based on its finding that defendant was “on supervision and bail,” is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Allen, 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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. ORS 475.992. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle. We reject defendant’s arguments on that issue without discussion.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on one of the counts of delivery of a Schedule II controlled substance. He argues that the trial court’s upward departure sentence was erroneous under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), andApprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), because it was based on facts that were neither 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. Allen, 198 Or App 392, 108 P3d 651, adh’d to as clarified on recons, 202 Or App 565 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure, based on its finding that defendant was “on supervision and bail,” is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Allen, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 P.3d 786, 204 Or. App. 421, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maddox-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack