State v. Wierson

172 P.3d 281, 216 Or. App. 318, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1673, 2007 WL 4181932
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedNovember 28, 2007
DocketC053516CR; A131681
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 172 P.3d 281 (State v. Wierson) 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. Wierson, 172 P.3d 281, 216 Or. App. 318, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1673, 2007 WL 4181932 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

*319 PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175, and was sentenced to a prison term of 27 months, followed by three years of post-prison supervision. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in imposing a sentence in violation of OAR 213-005-0002(4), which provides that a “term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crimes of conviction.” Because the crime of conviction is a Class C felony, the maximum indeterminate sentence is five years. ORS 161.605(3). Therefore, defendant reasons, his sentence, which, including post-prison supervision, totals 63 months, exceeds the maximum by three months.

Although defendant did not preserve the error in the trial court, he asserts that the error is apparent on the face of the record, and urges this court to exercise its discretion to correct it. See State v. McCormick, 185 Or App 491, 60 P3d 1089 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 391 (2003) (correcting similar error). The state concedes that the error is apparent on the face of the record, but argues that this court should not exercise its discretion to correct it because it means, at most, that defendant will serve an additional three months of post-prison supervision. Because the state has no valid interest in having defendant serve an unlawful sentence, we choose to exercise our discretion to address the error.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

Related

State v. Shoop
473 P.3d 145 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2020)
State v. Taylor
433 P.3d 486 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2018)
State v. Larrance
347 P.3d 830 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2015)
State v. Aitken
296 P.3d 587 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2013)
State v. Calhoun
280 P.3d 1045 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)
State v. Capri
273 P.3d 290 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)
State v. Gutierrez
259 P.3d 951 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2011)
State v. Hyman
221 P.3d 832 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)
State v. Williams
215 P.3d 930 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 P.3d 281, 216 Or. App. 318, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1673, 2007 WL 4181932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wierson-orctapp-2007.