Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LYLE ALLEN BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2009-03-11
Citations: 226 Or. App. 460
Docket Number: 05C52601, 05C54468, 06C41139, 06C49896; A134921, A134922, A134923, A134924
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LYLE ALLEN BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Rosenblum, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 226
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Submitted October 30, 2008,
affirmed March 11, 2009
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LYLE ALLEN BRAATEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
05C52601, 05C54468, 06C41139, 06C49896; A134921 (Control), A134922, A134923, A134924
204 P3d 117
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Rosenblum, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree theft (Counts 1, 2, and 3) and one count of attempted theft. In a separate case, defendant was convicted of second-degree theft. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed consecutive durational departure sentences on Counts 1, 2, and 3. The court imposed the sentences to be served consecutively to one another and consecutively to the sentence imposed on defendant's separate second-degree theft conviction. Defendant advances an unpreserved challenge to the trial court's authority to order that the sentences be served consecutively in the absence of findings of fact by the jury. In light of Oregon v. Ice, 555 US_, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009), the trial court did not err.
Affirmed.