Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MIGUEL VELASQUEZ COLIN, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2005-10-12
Citations: 202 Or. App. 233
Docket Number: C961860CR; A125566
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MIGUEL VELASQUEZ COLIN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 202
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted August 31,
sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed October 12, 2005
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MIGUEL VELASQUEZ COLIN, Appellant.
C961860CR; A125566
120 P3d 1259
Ernest G. Lannet, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
David J. Amesbury, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Rosenblum, J., vice Ceniceros, S. J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his sentence on a conviction for kidnapping in the second degree, ORS 163.225. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance before resentencing him. He further 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 a departure sentence based on a finding that the harm to the victim was substantially greater than typical for the offense, because defendant did not admit, to that fact and the court did not submit it to a jury, in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We do not reach defendant's first argument because we conclude that he is entitled to resentencing based on his second argument.
Although he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, he argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decisions in State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), and State v. Sawatzky, 195 Or App 159, 96 P3d 1288 (2004), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.