State v. Tanner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Tanner

78 P.3d 132, 190 Or. App. 299, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1425

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 22, 2003

Docket990231447; A111473

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 P.3d 132 (State v. Tanner) 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. Tanner, 78 P.3d 132, 190 Or. App. 299, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1425 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for a number of felonies, making multiple assignments of error. We reject his contentions with one exception, his sentence on count 9, kidnapping in the first degree. We remand for resentencing.

The court sentenced defendant to two upward departures on count 9, which in his case resulted in a minimum sentence of 260 months. However, the crime is a Class A felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years, or 240 months. The state concedes that the sentence that the court imposed exceeds what the statute permits. Although defendant did not object at the time of sentencing, the error is apparent on the face of the record, and we exercise our discretion to review it. See State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546, 565-66, 23 P3d 374 (2001).

Sentence on count 9 vacated; remanded for resent-encing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for a number of felonies, making multiple assignments of error. We reject his contentions with one exception, his sentence on count 9, kidnapping in the first degree. We remand for resentencing.

The court sentenced defendant to two upward departures on count 9, which in his case resulted in a minimum sentence of 260 months. However, the crime is a Class A felony with a maximum sentence of 20 years, or 240 months. The state concedes that the sentence that the court imposed exceeds what the statute permits. Although defendant did not object at the time of sentencing, the error is apparent on the face of the record, and we exercise our discretion to review it. See State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546, 565-66, 23 P3d 374 (2001).

Sentence on count 9 vacated; remanded for resent-encing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 P.3d 132, 190 Or. App. 299, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tanner-orctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack