State v. Toledo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Toledo

28 P.3d 1194, 175 Or. App. 280, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 978

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 5, 2001

Docket98-CR-0198-15; A105341

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 P.3d 1194 (State v. Toledo) 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. Toledo, 28 P.3d 1194, 175 Or. App. 280, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 978 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

*281 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on multiple charges of assault and other offenses arising out of an incident in which he injured several individuals while driving under the influence of intoxicants. On appeal, he challenges only the sentencing guidelines departure sentence imposed on one count of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, asserting that the trial court erroneously found several factors to support a departure sentence. The state agrees that at least one of the departure factors relied upon by the court was not justified and that the case should be remanded for resentencing.

One of the departure factors relied on by the court was “use of a weapon in the commission of the offense.” OAR 213-008-0002(l)(b)(E). However, one of the elements of the offense was that it was committed “by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon.” Factual aspects of a crime that constitute elements of the crime generally may not be used as aggravating factors as well, “unless the aspect is ‘significantly different from the usual criminal conduct captured by the aspect of the crime.’ ” State v. Guthrie, 112 Or App 102, 106, 828 P2d 432 (1992), quoting OAR 213-008-0002(2). The court made no finding that the “use of a weapon” aspect of this crime was significantly different from the usual criminal conduct captured by the aspect of the crime. Accordingly, the court erred in relying on this factor in support of departure. Although the court found more than one factor in support of departure, it did not find that any of the factors independently would support departure. Therefore, resentencing is required.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

*281 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on multiple charges of assault and other offenses arising out of an incident in which he injured several individuals while driving under the influence of intoxicants. On appeal, he challenges only the sentencing guidelines departure sentence imposed on one count of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, asserting that the trial court erroneously found several factors to support a departure sentence. The state agrees that at least one of the departure factors relied upon by the court was not justified and that the case should be remanded for resentencing.

One of the departure factors relied on by the court was “use of a weapon in the commission of the offense.” OAR 213-008-0002(l)(b)(E). However, one of the elements of the offense was that it was committed “by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon.” Factual aspects of a crime that constitute elements of the crime generally may not be used as aggravating factors as well, “unless the aspect is ‘significantly different from the usual criminal conduct captured by the aspect of the crime.’ ” State v. Guthrie, 112 Or App 102, 106, 828 P2d 432 (1992), quoting OAR 213-008-0002(2). The court made no finding that the “use of a weapon” aspect of this crime was significantly different from the usual criminal conduct captured by the aspect of the crime. Accordingly, the court erred in relying on this factor in support of departure. Although the court found more than one factor in support of departure, it did not find that any of the factors independently would support departure. Therefore, resentencing is required.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 P.3d 1194, 175 Or. App. 280, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-toledo-orctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack