State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Thomas

129 P.3d 212, 204 Or. App. 109, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 1, 2006

Docket010634545, A118915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 P.3d 212 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 129 P.3d 212, 204 Or. App. 109, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 113 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*110 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder with a firearm, first-degree assault with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm. He challenges his convictions and sentences. We reject defendant’s challenges to his convictions without discussion.

With respect to his sentences, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of dangerous offender sentences was erroneous 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), because the sentences were based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, he argues that the imposition of the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Warren, 195 Or App 656, 98 P3d 1129 (2004), the sentences are plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), 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

*110 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of attempted murder with a firearm, first-degree assault with a firearm, and felon in possession of a firearm. He challenges his convictions and sentences. We reject defendant’s challenges to his convictions without discussion.

With respect to his sentences, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of dangerous offender sentences was erroneous 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), because the sentences were based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, he argues that the imposition of the sentences should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Warren, 195 Or App 656, 98 P3d 1129 (2004), the sentences are plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 P.3d 212, 204 Or. App. 109, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack