State v. Steinhoff

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Steinhoff

120 P.3d 1255, 202 Or. App. 221, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1336

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 12, 2005

Docket03CR0514; A121824

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 P.3d 1255 (State v. Steinhoff) 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. Steinhoff, 120 P.3d 1255, 202 Or. App. 221, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1336 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary, ORS 164.225, third-degree theft, ORS 164.043, and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. The trial court imposed an upward departure sentence on the first-degree burglary conviction based on a finding of “repetitive conduct in theft type offenses.” Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing a departure sentence based on a fact not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005) , the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences 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 burglary, ORS 164.225, third-degree theft, ORS 164.043, and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. The trial court imposed an upward departure sentence on the first-degree burglary conviction based on a finding of “repetitive conduct in theft type offenses.” Defendant argues that, under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), the court erred in imposing a departure sentence based on a fact not found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.

Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005) , the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 P.3d 1255, 202 Or. App. 221, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-steinhoff-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack