State v. Wells

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Wells

134 P.3d 1113, 205 Or. App. 551, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 3, 2006

Docket200307068; A122963

StatusPublished

This text of 134 P.3d 1113 (State v. Wells) 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. Wells, 134 P.3d 1113, 205 Or. App. 551, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 572 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

After a trial to a jury, defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary and second-degree theft. On the conviction for first-degree burglary, defendant received a sentence under OitS 137.717 of 19 months’ imprisonment based on a prior conviction for first-degree burglary; on the conviction for second-degree theft, defendant received a sentence of 60 days in jail, to run concurrently with his 19-month sentence.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of an ORS 137.717 sentence based on a prior conviction violated the principles enunciated in 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), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Defendant did not advance that challenge below, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Our decision in State v. Yashin, 199 Or App 511, 112 P3d 331, rev den, 122 P3d 65 (2005), is controlling.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

After a trial to a jury, defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary and second-degree theft. On the conviction for first-degree burglary, defendant received a sentence under OitS 137.717 of 19 months’ imprisonment based on a prior conviction for first-degree burglary; on the conviction for second-degree theft, defendant received a sentence of 60 days in jail, to run concurrently with his 19-month sentence.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court’s imposition of an ORS 137.717 sentence based on a prior conviction violated the principles enunciated in 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), because it was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Defendant did not advance that challenge below, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Our decision in State v. Yashin, 199 Or App 511, 112 P3d 331, rev den, 122 P3d 65 (2005), is controlling.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 P.3d 1113, 205 Or. App. 551, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wells-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack