State v. Pittsley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Pittsley

215 P.3d 875, 229 Or. App. 706, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1031

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 15, 2009

Docket0602255CR; A137178

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 P.3d 875 (State v. Pittsley) 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. Pittsley, 215 P.3d 875, 229 Or. App. 706, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1031 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of burglary and other offenses. On the burglary conviction, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence allowed under grid block 7-A of the sentencing guidelines. On appeal, defendant contends that he instead should have been sentenced under grid block 7-B, which has a shorter maximum allowable sentence, because the state failed to prove that a prior out-of-state conviction constituted a “person” felony for purposes of the guidelines. The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Defendant also raises a number of other challenges to his convictions and sentences, each of which is unpreserved and/or lacks merit. We reject those challenges without discussion.

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 burglary and other offenses. On the burglary conviction, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence allowed under grid block 7-A of the sentencing guidelines. On appeal, defendant contends that he instead should have been sentenced under grid block 7-B, which has a shorter maximum allowable sentence, because the state failed to prove that a prior out-of-state conviction constituted a “person” felony for purposes of the guidelines. The state concedes that the trial court erred in that regard. We agree and accept the state’s concession.

Defendant also raises a number of other challenges to his convictions and sentences, each of which is unpreserved and/or lacks merit. We reject those challenges without discussion.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 P.3d 875, 229 Or. App. 706, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pittsley-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack