State v. Ricke

120 P.3d 539, 201 Or. App. 713, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1254
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 28, 2005
Docket01061346; A120095
StatusPublished

This text of 120 P.3d 539 (State v. Ricke) 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. Ricke, 120 P.3d 539, 201 Or. App. 713, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1254 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of stalking, a Class C felony. The trial court imposed a 96-month sentence. On appeal, defendant advances two assignments of error: (1) the 96-month sentence exceeded the maximum sentence permitted by law; and (2) the court imposed a departure sentence based on facts that defendant did not admit and that the court did not submit to a jury, Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). The state concedes that the trial court’s sentence exceeded the maximum five-year sentence for a Class C felony, ORS 161.605(3), and that the case must be remanded on that basis. Layton v. Hall, 181 Or App 581, 591, 47 P3d 898 (2002). We accept the state’s concession and agree that, because the 96-month sentence exceeded the maximum permitted by law, the case must be remanded for resentencing. Because we remand for resentencing, we need not reach defendant’s assignment of error under Blakely.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

Related

Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Layton v. Hall
47 P.3d 898 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 P.3d 539, 201 Or. App. 713, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ricke-orctapp-2005.