Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAUL CORDOVA-LOPEZ, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-10-21
Citations: 115 Or. App. 754
Docket Number: 91C-20503; CA A71193
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAUL CORDOVA-LOPEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 115
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 30,
convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing October 21, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RAUL CORDOVA-LOPEZ, Appellant.
(91C-20503; CA A71193)
838 P2d 644
Thomas D. O’Neil, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Catherine Conrad, Salem.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant pleaded guilty to 5 charges and was sentenced as a dangerous offender on each conviction. The sentences were imposed under the sentencing guidelines, so appellate review is governed by ORS 138.222.
When a sentencing court imposes an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence in lieu of a determinate sentence under the guidelines, the court is required to state what presumptive sentence would otherwise have been imposed. That presumptive sentence becomes, in effect, the minimum dangerous offender sentence. State v. Serhienko, 111 Or App 604, 826 P2d 114 (1992). The court imposed departure sentences as the minimum sentences. The state concedes that that was error, and we accept the concession.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.