State v. Marks

206 P.3d 1102, 227 Or. App. 634, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 293
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedApril 22, 2009
Docket07P50273; A136456
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 P.3d 1102 (State v. Marks) 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. Marks, 206 P.3d 1102, 227 Or. App. 634, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 293 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of criminal contempt of court for failing to pay child support. ORS 33.065. The trial court imposed a six-year term of probation. On appeal, defendant argues that the maximum term of probation for his crime is five years, ORS 137.010(4), and that the trial court’s imposition of a six-year term constitutes error apparent on the face of the record under ORAP 5.45. The state concedes that the court plainly erred and that the case should be remanded for resentencing. We agree that the error is apparent on the face of the record and, given the gravity of the error and the state’s concession, exercise our discretion to correct it.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Erb
346 P.3d 1311 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2015)
State v. Marks
7 P. 50273 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 P.3d 1102, 227 Or. App. 634, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marks-orctapp-2009.