State v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Powell

120 P.3d 1225, 202 Or. App. 219, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1330

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 12, 2005

Docket20-03-01146; A121819

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 P.3d 1225 (State v. Powell) 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. Powell, 120 P.3d 1225, 202 Or. App. 219, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1330 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*220 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, reckless driving, ORS 811.140, two counts of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 163.364, possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. The trial court imposed departure sentences for a number of the offenses, based on a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing departure sentences based on a fact that was not admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentences are plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, 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

*220 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, reckless driving, ORS 811.140, two counts of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 163.364, possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. The trial court imposed departure sentences for a number of the offenses, based on a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing departure sentences based on a fact that was not admitted by the defendant or found by a jury.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentences are plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 P.3d 1225, 202 Or. App. 219, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-powell-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack