Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICKY THOMAS BRADLEY, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2006-08-30
Citations: 207 Or. App. 524
Docket Number: 03CR0635; A122844
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICKY THOMAS BRADLEY, Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 207
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs July 31,
sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed August 30,
petition for review denied October 31, 2006 (341 Or 579)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICKY THOMAS BRADLEY, Appellant.
03CR0635; A122844
142 P3d 513
Peter Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, and Stephanie Hortsch, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of felony driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010. On appeal, defendant raises several challenges to his sentence. Because we agree with his first argument, we do not reach his remaining arguments. The sentencing court imposed an upward durational departure sentence based on a finding that defendant had persistently been involved with similar offenses. Defendant argues 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 imposing that sentence based on facts that were not found by a jury or admitted by defendant, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Although defendant did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. We agree. See State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343, adh'd to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006). For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.