Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LARRY LEROY WOODS, aka Larry L. Woods, aka Robert Leroy Green, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2008-12-24
Citations: 224 Or. App. 684
Docket Number: 051237684; A132383
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LARRY LEROY WOODS, aka Larry L. Woods, aka Robert Leroy Green, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 224
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Submitted October 21,
remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed December 24, 2008,
respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed February 3 allowed by opinion April 29,2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LARRY LEROY WOODS, aka Larry L. Woods, aka Robert Leroy Green, Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
051237684; A132383
198 P3d 978
James N. Varner filed the brief for appellant. Larry L. Woods filed the supplemental briefpro se.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial on one count each of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395, theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045, assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160, and resisting arrest, ORS 162.315. The trial court imposed an upward departure sentence for the robbery count, based on its conclusion that certain findings by the jury constituted substantial and compelling reasons justifying that departure. The trial court also imposed, over defendant's objections, consecutive sentences for the assault and the resisting arrest counts based on judicial factfinding. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing the upward departure sentence and in imposing the consecutive sentences. Defendant also raises a pro se claim that his federal due process rights were violated when a pretrial "call" hearing setting his trial date was conducted in his absence.
We reject without discussion defendant's challenges to the upward departure sentence and to the pretrial hearing. As to defendant's challenge to the consecutive sentences, the state acknowledges that the Oregon Supreme Court's decision in State v. Ice, 343 Or 248, 260, 170 P3d 1049 (2007), cert granted, _US_, 128 S Ct 1657 (2008) controls, and, as such, the trial court erred in imposing the consecutive sentences. We agree.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.