Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PHILLIP ALLEN SHELLABARGER, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2005-08-10
Citations: 201 Or. App. 210
Docket Number: 03CR1593; A123282
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PHILLIP ALLEN SHELLABARGER, Appellant.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Armstrong, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 201
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs July 11,
sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed August 10, 2005
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. PHILLIP ALLEN SHELLABARGER, Appellant.
03CR1593; A123282
116 P3d 952
James N. Varner filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Erika L. Hadlock, Assistant Solicitor General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Armstrong, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of one count of assault in the first degree, ORS 163.185, and two counts of assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175. The trial court imposed an upward durational departure sentence on the first-degree assault conviction, based on a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the departure sentence, arguing 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 facts that defendant did not admit and that the court did not submit to a jury. He concedes that he did not advance such a challenge to the trial court, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. The state concedes that, under our decisions in State v. Gornick, 196 Or App 397, 102 P3d 734 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 583 (2005), and State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005), the sentence is plainly erroneous. We accept the state's concession and, for the reasons discussed in those cases, exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.