State v. Quamen

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Quamen

132 P.3d 679, 205 Or. App. 98, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 413

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 5, 2006

Docket04CR0428FE; A124991

StatusPublished

This text of 132 P.3d 679 (State v. Quamen) 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. Quamen, 132 P.3d 679, 205 Or. App. 98, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 413 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted in a trial to the court of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395, assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160, and theft in the third degree, ORS 164.043. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence for robbery in the third degree, 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 trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence. 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. Under similar circumstances, the same argument was rejected in State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 170, 130 P3d 780 (2006), which is controlling.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted in a trial to the court of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395, assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160, and theft in the third degree, ORS 164.043. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence for robbery in the third degree, 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 trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence. 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. Under similar circumstances, the same argument was rejected in State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 170, 130 P3d 780 (2006), which is controlling.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 P.3d 679, 205 Or. App. 98, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-quamen-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack