State v. Rodriguez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Rodriguez

116 P.3d 923, 201 Or. App. 94, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 975

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

Docket01C-50641; A118029

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 P.3d 923 (State v. Rodriguez) 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. Rodriguez, 116 P.3d 923, 201 Or. App. 94, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 975 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*95 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his sentences on one count of rape in the first degree, one count of rape in the second degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree. He argues that the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite findings under ORS 137.123. In a supplemental brief, defendant argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences and of a departure sentence violate the rule of law announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). Although none of defendant’s arguments were preserved in the trial court, we have held that imposition of a departure sentence on each of the grounds stated by the trial court here constitutes plain error. State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005). For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because that error requires resentencing on all counts, we need not address defendant’s remaining challenges to his sentences.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

*95 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his sentences on one count of rape in the first degree, one count of rape in the second degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree. He argues that the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite findings under ORS 137.123. In a supplemental brief, defendant argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences and of a departure sentence violate the rule of law announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). Although none of defendant’s arguments were preserved in the trial court, we have held that imposition of a departure sentence on each of the grounds stated by the trial court here constitutes plain error. State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005). For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because that error requires resentencing on all counts, we need not address defendant’s remaining challenges to his sentences.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 P.3d 923, 201 Or. App. 94, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rodriguez-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack