State v. Sims

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Sims

114 P.3d 542, 200 Or. App. 389, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 780

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 22, 2005

Docket02CR0735FE; A125239

StatusPublished

This text of 114 P.3d 542 (State v. Sims) 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. Sims, 114 P.3d 542, 200 Or. App. 389, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 780 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft. The trial court imposed a durational departure sentence based on findings of persistent involvement in similar offenses unrelated to the crime and harm or loss significantly greater than typical. On appeal, defendant argues that the sentence is unlawful because it is based on facts not admitted or found by a jury, in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). The state concedes that, in light of our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), defendant is correct. We accept the concession.

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

Defendant was convicted of first-degree theft. The trial court imposed a durational departure sentence based on findings of persistent involvement in similar offenses unrelated to the crime and harm or loss significantly greater than typical. On appeal, defendant argues that the sentence is unlawful because it is based on facts not admitted or found by a jury, in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). The state concedes that, in light of our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), defendant is correct. We accept the concession.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 P.3d 542, 200 Or. App. 389, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sims-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack