State v. Russell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Russell

134 P.3d 1111, 205 Or. App. 561, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 575

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 3, 2006

Docket0402-31058; A125050

StatusPublished

This text of 134 P.3d 1111 (State v. Russell) 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. Russell, 134 P.3d 1111, 205 Or. App. 561, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of theft in the first degree (receiving) and one count of theft in the first degree. The trial court merged the convictions for purposes of sentencing and imposed a 21-month sentence, which was an upward durational departure from 13 months, the presumptive sentence under ORS 137.717 (repeat property offender). The departure was based on defendant’s persistent involvement in criminal activity and on the fact that he committed the crimes while on supervision. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence is unlawful under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). He acknowledges that he did not preserve his claim of error but urges us to exercise our discretion to review the sentence as plain error on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45.

This case is controlled by State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006). The sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we 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

After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of theft in the first degree (receiving) and one count of theft in the first degree. The trial court merged the convictions for purposes of sentencing and imposed a 21-month sentence, which was an upward durational departure from 13 months, the presumptive sentence under ORS 137.717 (repeat property offender). The departure was based on defendant’s persistent involvement in criminal activity and on the fact that he committed the crimes while on supervision. On appeal, defendant contends that his sentence is unlawful under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). He acknowledges that he did not preserve his claim of error but urges us to exercise our discretion to review the sentence as plain error on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45.

This case is controlled by State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006). The sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.3d 1111, 205 Or. App. 561, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-russell-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack