State v. Noble

896 P.2d 617, 135 Or. App. 381, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 961
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 28, 1995·No. CF 93-0695; CA A82754·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for robbery in the first degree, assault in the fourth degree, and menacing. ORS 164.415; ORS 163.160; ORS 163.190. We affirm his convictions without discussion and remand for entry of a corrected judgment.

Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court should have imposed a 36-month, rather than 60-month, term of post-prison supervision, pursuant to OAR 253-05-002(2)(c). Although defendant did not object when the trial court verbally imposed the 60-month term, he requests that we exercise our discretion to review the unpreserved claim of error. See ORAP 5.45(2).

The circumstances of this case are identical to those in State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 879 P2d 881 (1994). The error is apparent on the face of the record and, for the reasons discussed in Jones, we exercise our discretion to review it. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment deleting the 60-month term of post-prison supervision and imposing a 36-month term.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for entry of corrected judgment.

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

State v. Noble, 896 P.2d 617, 135 Or. App. 381, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 961 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

896 P.2d 617 (State v. Noble) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Curtiss
904 P.2d 198 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)