State v. Palfenier

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Palfenier

184 P.3d 1163, 219 Or. App. 655, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 590

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 7, 2008

DocketC052447CR; A133430

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 P.3d 1163 (State v. Palfenier) 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. Palfenier, 184 P.3d 1163, 219 Or. App. 655, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 590 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*656 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.411, and one count of fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160. On appeal, he challenges his convictions and his sentence. We reject without discussion defendant’s challenges to his convictions. On the sexual abuse convictions, defendant received mandatory minimum sentences of 100 months for each conviction, ORS 137.700(2)(a)(P), and the court ordered that those sentences be served partially consecutively to one another, over defendant’s objection that the imposition of consecutive sentences required factfinding by the jury. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining convictions. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences based on judicial factfinding. The state acknowledges that this issue is controlled by State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 260, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted,_US _, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008). We agree.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*656 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, ORS 163.427, two counts of first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, ORS 163.411, and one count of fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160. On appeal, he challenges his convictions and his sentence. We reject without discussion defendant’s challenges to his convictions. On the sexual abuse convictions, defendant received mandatory minimum sentences of 100 months for each conviction, ORS 137.700(2)(a)(P), and the court ordered that those sentences be served partially consecutively to one another, over defendant’s objection that the imposition of consecutive sentences required factfinding by the jury. The court imposed concurrent sentences on the remaining convictions. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences based on judicial factfinding. The state acknowledges that this issue is controlled by State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 260, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted,_US _, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008). We agree.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 P.3d 1163, 219 Or. App. 655, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-palfenier-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack