State v. Wise

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Wise

123 P.3d 370, 202 Or. App. 661, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1499

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

Docket20-02-25723; A121787

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 P.3d 370 (State v. Wise) 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. Wise, 123 P.3d 370, 202 Or. App. 661, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1499 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010(4), reckless driving, ORS 811.140, criminal mischief in the second degree, ORS 164.354, driving while suspended, ORS 811.182(4), attempt to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540(l)(b), and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b). On appeal, he first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for substitute appointed counsel. We reject defendant’s arguments on that issue without discussion.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on his conviction of possession of a controlled substance. He argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous 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), 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, he 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 finding that defendant had engaged in “persistent similar offenses” — 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 was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010(4), reckless driving, ORS 811.140, criminal mischief in the second degree, ORS 164.354, driving while suspended, ORS 811.182(4), attempt to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540(l)(b), and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b). On appeal, he first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for substitute appointed counsel. We reject defendant’s arguments on that issue without discussion.

Defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on his conviction of possession of a controlled substance. He argues that the court’s upward departure was erroneous 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), 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, he 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 finding that defendant had engaged in “persistent similar offenses” — 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 370, 202 Or. App. 661, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wise-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack