State v. Umtuch
This text of 927 P.2d 142 (State v. Umtuch) 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.
Opinion
After a trial to the court, defendant was convicted on one count each of sodomy I, ORS 163.405 (a Class A felony), and kidnaping II, ORS 163.225. The court sentenced defendant to a term of 260-months incarceration on the sodomy count with a period of post-prison supervision of 240 months, followed by a consecutive 72-month term of incarceration on the kidnaping count, along with 36 months of post-prison supervision. The court also imposed a $100,000 compensatory fine and ordered the Attorney General to foreclose on 40 acres of property reportedly owned by defendant. We affirm the convictions without discussion and remand for resentencing.
On appeal, the state concedes that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence on the sodomy count that exceeded the maximum term of incarceration of 240 months under ORS ldl.bOSG)1 and OAR 253-08-003(2).2 In addition, the state calls to our attention that the trial court erred under ORS 144.1033in imposing a 240-month term of post-prison supervision on that count because the trial court failed to make allowance for defendant’s time served. Cf. State v. Burch, 134 Or App 569, 573, 896 P2d 10 (1995) (sentence imposing a 240-month post-prison supervision term “per 144.103” held not to exceed the maximum statutory indeterminate sentence). Although defendant did not object when the trial court imposed sentence on the sodomy count, the [369]*369state suggests that we should exercise our discretion to review the unpreserved error as one apparent on the face of the record. See ORAP 5.45(2).
The circumstances here are analogous to those in State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 416-17, 879 P2d 881 (1994), and for the reasons discussed in Jones we exercise our discretion and accept the state’s concession.4 Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for resentencing.
Because we remand the entire case for resentencing, ORS 138.222(5), we do not reach defendant’s other assigned error.5
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
927 P.2d 142, 144 Or. App. 366, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-umtuch-orctapp-1996.