State v. Weiss

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Weiss

124 P.3d 1293, 203 Or. App. 467, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1659

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 28, 2005

Docket03-07-33207; A123325

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 P.3d 1293 (State v. Weiss) 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. Weiss, 124 P.3d 1293, 203 Or. App. 467, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1659 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*469 LANDAU, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300. For both counts, the trial court found defendant to be subject to a repeat property offender presumptive sentence under ORS 137.717, based on his criminal history. The trial court also imposed dispositional departure sentences on both counts, based on a finding that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense and a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentences, arguing that, 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), the court erred in treating him as a repeat property offender and in imposing departure sentences based on facts that defendant did not admit and that were not found by a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error.

We need not reach the question whether the trial court’s use of defendant’s criminal history for purposes of ORS 137.717 fits within the exception described by the Court in Blakely and Apprendi for “the fact of a prior conviction.” The state concedes that, under our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 583 (2005), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the departure sentences are plainly erroneous. We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons discussed in those cases, 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

*469 LANDAU, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300. For both counts, the trial court found defendant to be subject to a repeat property offender presumptive sentence under ORS 137.717, based on his criminal history. The trial court also imposed dispositional departure sentences on both counts, based on a finding that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense and a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentences, arguing that, 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), the court erred in treating him as a repeat property offender and in imposing departure sentences based on facts that defendant did not admit and that were not found by a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but argues that the sentences should be reviewed as plain error.

We need not reach the question whether the trial court’s use of defendant’s criminal history for purposes of ORS 137.717 fits within the exception described by the Court in Blakely and Apprendi for “the fact of a prior conviction.” The state concedes that, under our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 583 (2005), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the departure sentences are plainly erroneous. We accept the state’s concession and, for the reasons discussed in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 P.3d 1293, 203 Or. App. 467, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weiss-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack