Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JARROD RAYMOND BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 212 Or. App. 494
Docket Number: 030917; A125121
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JARROD RAYMOND BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Ortega, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 212
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted April 5,
sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 2,
petition for review denied July 24, 2007 (343 Or 160)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JARROD RAYMOND BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Lincoln County Circuit Court
030917; A125121
157 P3d 1237
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Denise G. Fjordbeck, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Ortega, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
After a trial to a jury, defendant was convicted on two counts of first-degree sodomy, ORS 163.405. On one of the counts, the court imposed a sentence of 130 months' imprisonment. On the other count, the court imposed an upward departure sentence of 240 months' imprisonment based on its findings that defendant was not amenable to rehabilitation and that the victim was particularly vulnerable.
On appeal, defendant asserts various challenges to his convictions. We reject those arguments without discussion. Defendant also argues that the departure sentence violates the Sixth Amendment under the principles articulated 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, adh'd to on recons, 207 Or App 1, 139 P3d 981 (2006), rev allowed, 342 Or 256 (2007), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reasons set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.