State v. Volage

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Volage

123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 667, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1506

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

Docket0309-34733; A126641

StatusPublished

This text of 123 P.3d 378 (State v. Volage) 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. Volage, 123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 667, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1506 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts of aggravated theft in the first degree and one count of theft in the first degree. On appeal, she assigns error to the trial court’s order of $244,000 in restitution. She argues that she admitted only to stealing $171,503.04, and that the difference had to be proved to a jury under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496, 505, 106 P3d 670, adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 521, 112 P3d 433 (2005), is controlling on that issue. However, -under ORS 138.222(5), the trial court will be required to reconsider the issue of restitution because of defendant’s other challenge.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on her conviction for aggravated theft in the first degree. She argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous under Blakely and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant nor found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, she argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure — based on its findings that the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim were significantly greater than typical and that defendant violated the public trust — is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, 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

PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts of aggravated theft in the first degree and one count of theft in the first degree. On appeal, she assigns error to the trial court’s order of $244,000 in restitution. She argues that she admitted only to stealing $171,503.04, and that the difference had to be proved to a jury under Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). State v. Gutierrez, 197 Or App 496, 505, 106 P3d 670, adh’d to on recons, 199 Or App 521, 112 P3d 433 (2005), is controlling on that issue. However, -under ORS 138.222(5), the trial court will be required to reconsider the issue of restitution because of defendant’s other challenge.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on her conviction for aggravated theft in the first degree. She argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous under Blakely and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant nor found by a jury. Although defendant did not advance such a challenge below, she argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the trial court’s upward departure — based on its findings that the severity of the crime and the impact on the victim were significantly greater than typical and that defendant violated the public trust — is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P.3d 378, 202 Or. App. 667, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-volage-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack