Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH H. PREECE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2005-08-31
Citations: 201 Or. App. 403
Docket Number: 109108315; A124021
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH H. PREECE, Appellant.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 201
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs July 28,
sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed August 31, 2005
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEITH H. PREECE, Appellant.
109108315; A124021
118 P3d 857
Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, and Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, 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 Schuman and Ortega, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Schuman, J., vice Richardson, S. J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of theft in the first degree. ORS 164.055. The trial court imposed an upward dispositional departure sentence, based on findings concerning the degree of harm to the victim and defendant's repeated failure to appear. On appeal, defendant challenges only the 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.
Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.