State v. Preece

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Preece

118 P.3d 857, 201 Or. App. 403, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1139

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 31, 2005

Docket109108315; A124021

StatusPublished

This text of 118 P.3d 857 (State v. Preece) 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. Preece, 118 P.3d 857, 201 Or. App. 403, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1139 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. The trial court imposed an upward dispositional departure sentence, based on findings concerning the degree of harm to the victim and defendant’s repeated failure to appear. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence, arguing 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 a departure sentence based on facts that defendant did not admit and that the court did not submit to a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. The state concedes that, under our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 583 (2005), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentence is plainly erroneous. We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons discussed in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; 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 theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. The trial court imposed an upward dispositional departure sentence, based on findings concerning the degree of harm to the victim and defendant’s repeated failure to appear. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence, arguing 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 a departure sentence based on facts that defendant did not admit and that the court did not submit to a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. The state concedes that, under our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 583 (2005), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentence is plainly erroneous. We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons discussed in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 P.3d 857, 201 Or. App. 403, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-preece-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack