Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSHUA GUNNER JOHNSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2006-05-31
Citations: 206 Or. App. 227
Docket Number: 20-02-14420A; A121219
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSHUA GUNNER JOHNSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 206
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs April 10,
sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 31, 2006
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSHUA GUNNER JOHNSON, Appellant.
20-02-14420A; A121219
136 P3d 71
Patrick M. Ebbett filed the brief for appellant. With him on the brief was Chilton, Ebbett & Rohr, LLC.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Erika L. Hadlock, Assistant Solicitor General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Linder, J., vice Richardson, S. J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
After a trial to a jury, defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery with a firearm, first-degree burglary, and second-degree assault. On the conviction for first-degree robbery with a firearm, the trial court imposed a durational departure sentence of 120 months' imprisonment and 36 months' post-prison supervision based on its findings that defendant was on supervision at the time of the offense and that the crimes escalated in nature. On appeal, defendant argues that the departure sentence 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. 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. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.