State v. Reinke

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Reinke

260 P.3d 820, 245 Or. App. 33, 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 1121

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 10, 2011

Docket090130185; A144138

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 P.3d 820 (State v. Reinke) 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. Reinke, 260 P.3d 820, 245 Or. App. 33, 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 1121 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*34 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for, inter alia, second-degree kidnapping (Count 15). ORS 163.225. A recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. It is sufficient to note that the trial court sentenced defendant as a dangerous offender, see ORS 161.725; ORS 161.737, to 280 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court’s sentence on Count 15 was legally erroneous because (1) the sentence did not include both a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration and (2) the state’s notice that it would be seeking a dangerous offender sentence was insufficient because the “Oregon Constitution requires that all essential or material elements of a crime be found by a grand jury and pleaded in an indictment.” With regard to defendant’s first contention, the state concedes that the trial court’s “sentence is erroneous.” We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Isom, 201 Or App 687, 690, 120 P3d 912 (2005) (“[A] correct sentence for a dangerous offender contains both a determinate mandatory minimum term of incarceration and an indeterminate maximum term, not to exceed 30 years.”). With regard to defendant’s second contention, we reject his constitutional arguments for the same reasons stated in State v. Sanchez, 238 Or App 259, 242 P3d 692 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 655 (2011).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*34 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for, inter alia, second-degree kidnapping (Count 15). ORS 163.225. A recitation of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. It is sufficient to note that the trial court sentenced defendant as a dangerous offender, see ORS 161.725; ORS 161.737, to 280 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court’s sentence on Count 15 was legally erroneous because (1) the sentence did not include both a determinate and indeterminate term of incarceration and (2) the state’s notice that it would be seeking a dangerous offender sentence was insufficient because the “Oregon Constitution requires that all essential or material elements of a crime be found by a grand jury and pleaded in an indictment.” With regard to defendant’s first contention, the state concedes that the trial court’s “sentence is erroneous.” We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Isom, 201 Or App 687, 690, 120 P3d 912 (2005) (“[A] correct sentence for a dangerous offender contains both a determinate mandatory minimum term of incarceration and an indeterminate maximum term, not to exceed 30 years.”). With regard to defendant’s second contention, we reject his constitutional arguments for the same reasons stated in State v. Sanchez, 238 Or App 259, 242 P3d 692 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 655 (2011).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 P.3d 820, 245 Or. App. 33, 2011 Ore. App. LEXIS 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reinke-orctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack