State v. Villanueva

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Villanueva

114 P.3d 543, 200 Or. App. 552, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 808

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 6, 2005

Docket20-03-03749; A121218

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 P.3d 543 (State v. Villanueva) 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. Villanueva, 114 P.3d 543, 200 Or. App. 552, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 808 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction on three counts of felony assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160, and one count of reckless endangerment, ORS 163.195. He raises two issues related to his sentencing. We agree that the trial court’s imposition of a departure sentence on Count 1 violated the principles established in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and that the error is apparent on the face of the record. State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005). Because we must therefore remand the entire case for resentencing, ORS 138.222(5), it is not necessary to discuss defendant’s other assignment of 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 appeals a judgment of conviction on three counts of felony assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160, and one count of reckless endangerment, ORS 163.195. He raises two issues related to his sentencing. We agree that the trial court’s imposition of a departure sentence on Count 1 violated the principles established in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), and that the error is apparent on the face of the record. State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005). Because we must therefore remand the entire case for resentencing, ORS 138.222(5), it is not necessary to discuss defendant’s other assignment of error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 P.3d 543, 200 Or. App. 552, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-villanueva-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack