Title: State v. Perez
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S52267
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2006

FILED:  March 30, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Petitioner on Review,
v.
RICHARD LAWRENCE PEREZ,
Respondent on Review.
(CC 0201-30132; CA A119741; SC S52267)
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted September 9, 2005.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem,
argued the cause for petitioner on review.  On the briefs were
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor
General, and Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General.
Jamesa J. Drake, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the
cause for respondent on review.  On the brief were Peter A.
Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, 
Office of Public Defense Services.
Before Carson,** Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz,*** Balmer, and Kistler, Justices.
CARSON, J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
*Appeal from Multnomah County Circuit Court, Ronald E. Cinniger, Judge. 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004).
**Chief Justice at the time of argument.
***Chief Justice at the time the decision was issued.
CARSON, J.
The issue in this criminal case is whether the Court of
Appeals improperly considered, as plain error, an unpreserved
claim of sentencing error under the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and the United States Supreme Court's
decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348,
147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124
S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004).  State v. Perez, 196 Or App
364, 373, 102 P3d 705 (2004).  For the reasons that follow, we
hold that the Court of Appeals should not have considered the
claim of error.  
The following facts are undisputed.  In January 2002,
police officers observed defendant jaywalking, and they stopped
him to issue a citation for failure to obey a traffic control
device, ORS 814.020(1).  During that stop, the officers asked
defendant if he had any illegal drugs or weapons in his
possession and also asked if they could search him.  Defendant
denied having any drugs or weapons and consented to a search. 
During that search, the officers found several individually
wrapped packets of cocaine and a spring-loaded knife disguised as
a cigarette lighter.  After the officers read defendant his
Miranda rights, defendant admitted that he had been selling the
cocaine.  Defendant was indicted on the following counts: 
(1) delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a
school, former ORS 475.999(1) (2001), renumbered as ORS
475.904(1) (2005); (2) delivery of a controlled substance, former
ORS 475.992(1) (2001), renumbered as ORS 475.840(1) (2005); (3)
possession of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992(4)
(2001), renumbered as ORS 475.840(3) (2005); and (4) felon in
possession of a restricted weapon, ORS 166.270(2).  
Defendant was tried before a jury on counts one, two,
and three.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict on counts one
and two, but did find defendant guilty on count three.  Defendant
waived his jury trial right on count four and was tried to the
court.  The trial court found defendant guilty on count
four. (1)  After the trial court declared a mistrial on counts
one and two, the state and defendant entered into an agreement. 
Pursuant to that agreement, the state dismissed count one and, in
exchange, defendant waived his jury trial right on count two and
submitted count two to the trial court on stipulated facts.  The
trial court thereafter found defendant guilty on count two.   
Under the Oregon Felony Sentencing Guidelines
(sentencing guidelines), defendant's presumptive sentence on
count two was 25 to 30 months of imprisonment, and his
presumptive sentence on count three was probation.  At
sentencing, the trial court reviewed the presentence
investigation report (PSI) and found the following aggravating
facts:  (1) defendant persistently had been involved in similar
offenses; (2) defendant was "on supervision" at the time of the
present offenses; and (3) "repeated supervision/incarceration had
failed to deter" defendant from engaging in criminal conduct. 
Based upon those findings, the trial court imposed an upward
departure sentence of 40 months of imprisonment on count two and
a concurrent departure sentence of six months of imprisonment on
count three. (2)  
Defendant did not admit to any of the facts that the
trial court relied upon in imposing the departure sentences, and,
as noted, a jury did not find those facts beyond a reasonable
doubt.  On the other hand, and although he was represented by
counsel at his sentencing, defendant did not object to the trial
court's finding of the aggravating facts; neither did he request
that a jury find the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. (3)
On appeal, relying upon the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Apprendi, 530 US 466, defendant argued that
the trial court had exceeded its authority by imposing departure
sentences based upon facts that defendant had not admitted or
that a jury had not found beyond a reasonable doubt.  Defendant
further claimed that the aggravating facts that the trial court
had relied upon in imposing his departure sentences did not fit
within the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment
requirements articulated in Apprendi. (4)  Defendant asserted
that the Court of Appeals should consider his Sixth Amendment
claim, even though he had failed to preserve it by objecting at
sentencing, because the trial court's failure to recognize and
apply the principles set out in Apprendi constituted plain error. 
After explaining the framework for analyzing a claim of
plain error, the Court of Appeals considered the scope of the
prior conviction exception to the Apprendi rule.  Perez, 196 Or
App at 369.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the prior
conviction exception is a narrow exception, limited to the "bare
fact" that a defendant had a prior conviction.  Id. at 371. 
Applying that standard, the Court of Appeals determined that the
aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court in imposing
defendant's departure sentences were additional findings beyond
the "bare fact" of a prior conviction; thus, the Court of Appeals
concluded, the trial court had committed an error of law.  Id. at
371-73.  The Court of Appeals further concluded that its narrow
interpretation of the prior conviction exception was "beyond
reasonable dispute[;]" the court therefore held that the trial
court's error had been apparent on the face of the record.  Id.
at 373.  Finally, the Court of Appeals chose to exercise its
discretion to correct the sentencing error and vacated
defendant's sentences.  Id. at 373.  We allowed the state's
petition for review.
In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that "any
fact[,] [other that the fact of a prior conviction,] that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory
maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt."  Apprendi, 530 US at 490. (5)  In Blakely,
the Court clarified the meaning of the phrase "prescribed
statutory maximum" from Apprendi:
"[T]he 'statutory maximum' for Apprendi purposes is the
maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis
of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted
by the defendant.  In other words, the relevant
'statutory maximum' is not the maximum sentence a judge
may impose after finding additional facts, but the
maximum he may impose without any additional findings."
Blakely, 542 US at 303-04 (internal citations omitted; emphasis
in original).  "Thus, in accordance with Blakely, the presumptive
sentence under the sentencing guidelines is the 'statutory
maximum' that constitutionally may be imposed, absent the
defendant's admission of aggravating facts or a jury finding of
such facts beyond a reasonable doubt."  State v. Gornick, 340 Or
160, 165, ___ P3d ___ (2006).  The one exception to the rule set
out in Apprendi is that the trial court may take notice of prior
convictions and increase a sentence based upon that finding. 
Blakely, 542 US at 301.  Those are the constitutional rules
applicable to sentencing situations like that faced by defendant.
As mentioned previously, defendant's claim of error
indisputably was not preserved; it therefore can be considered
only if it qualifies as plain error.  ORAP 5.45(1) provides, in
part: 
"No matter claimed as error will be considered on
appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the
lower court and is assigned as error in the opening
brief * * *, provided that the appellate court may
consider an error of law apparent on the face of the
record."    
"That exception to the preservation requirement also is known as
"'plain error.'"  Gornick, 340 Or at 166 (citing State v. Terry,
333 Or 163, 180, 37 P3d 157 (2001)).  For a claimed error to
qualify as plain error, "(1) it must be 'an error of law'; (2) it
must be 'obvious'; and (3) 'it [must] appear[] on the face of the
record.'"  Gornick, 340 Or at 167. (6)  If all those
requirements are satisfied, then the appellate court must "decide
whether to 'exercise its discretion to consider or not to
consider the error.'"  Id. at 166 (quoting Ailes v. Portland
Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991)).  Finally,   
"[t]his court employs two different standards of review
to ascertain whether the Court of Appeals properly
concluded that a trial court committed plain error. 
First, this court considers whether the Court of
Appeals committed an error of law in determining that
the three elements under the first step of the plain
error analysis had been satisfied.  Next, this court
inquires whether the Court of Appeals abused its
discretion in deciding to consider the error under the
second step in the plain error analysis."
Id. at 167 (internal citations omitted).    
We now turn to the question of whether the Court of
Appeals committed an error of law in applying the first step of
the plain error framework in this case.  Here, defendant claims
that the trial court committed legal error by finding the facts
that it relied upon in imposing his departure sentences, rather
than submitting the issue to a jury.  However, a trial court does
not err in finding aggravating facts if the defendant chooses not
to exercise his rights under Apprendi.  See Blakely, 542 US at
310 (so stating).  "[T]he mere fact that a judge, rather than a
jury, decides the facts relevant to sentencing does not
demonstrate that any error occurred.  Both courses of proceeding
are constitutionally permissible."  Gornick, 340 Or at 168.  A
criminal defendant who sits by silently while the trial court
finds aggravating facts and imposes a departure sentence based
upon those facts may have "chosen to have the trial court, rather
than a jury, find the aggravating facts."  Id. at 169.
In Gornick, the defendant pleaded guilty to an assault
charge by filling out a plea form which stated that he was giving
up his jury trial rights and that the trial court could impose a
sentence that it thought proper, up to a certain maximum.  Id. 
At sentencing, the defendant made no objection when the trial
court found certain aggravating facts and imposed a departure
sentence based upon those facts.  Id. at 169.  This court stated
that, under those circumstances, the "defendant could have chosen
to have the trial court, rather than a jury, find the aggravating
facts."  Id. at 169.  That inference –- that the defendant had
chosen to have the findings made by a judge rather than a jury --
was merely one of several competing inferences that could be
drawn from the trial court's finding of the aggravating facts. 
Id. at 169-70.  Another possible inference was that the trial
court erred by finding the aggravating facts in violation of the
Sixth Amendment.  Id. at 169.  Because the record did not clearly
show that the trial court had erred, this court concluded that
the claimed error could not qualify as plain error and held that
the Court of Appeals had erred by considering the defendant's
unpreserved claim.  Id. at 170.  
As in Gornick, defendant here waived his right to a
jury trial on two of the charges against him.  He signed a jury
waiver form stating that he "understands that he/she has a right
to a public trial by an impartial jury, and notwithstanding this
right elects to waive trial by jury and consents to be tried by a
Judge[.]"  He signed another form entitled "PETITION TO WAIVE
JURY TRIAL AND TRY THE CASE TO THE COURT UPON STIPULATED FACTS."
(Uppercase in original.)  That form provided, in part:
     "3. I wish to waive jury trial to the charge(s) of
delivery of a controlled substance * * * for
consideration[.]
"* * * * *
"5. I understand that I may plead "Not Guilty" to
any offense charged against me.  If I choose to plead
"Not Guilty" the Constitution guarantees me * * * the
right to a speedy and public trial by jury[.]
"* * * * *
"7. I know that if I waive jury trial and
stipulate to the facts to the charge(s) [sic] * * *,
the maximum possible sentence is 10 years
imprisonment[.]  I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE ACTUAL
SENTENCE IS UP TO THE COURT[.]"
(Uppercase in original.)
At sentencing, the trial court found several
aggravating facts and imposed a departure sentence of 40 months
of imprisonment on count two and a concurrent departure sentence
of six months of imprisonment on count three. (7)  Defendant
made no objection to the trial court's factfinding or its
imposition of departure sentences based upon those facts.  Those
circumstances are very similar to the circumstances that were
present in Gornick; as in Gornick, defendant could have chosen to
have the trial court, rather than a jury, find the aggravating
facts.  Furthermore, that inference is merely one of several
competing inferences that can be drawn from the trial court's
finding of the aggravating facts.  Therefore, the record did not
clearly show that the trial court erred, and we conclude that the
claimed error did not qualify as plain error under ORAP 5.45(1). 
It follows that the Court of Appeals erred by considering
defendant's unpreserved claim.   
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
1. Defendant did not appeal his sentence on count four, and we
therefore do not address defendant's sentence on that count. 
2. See OAR 213-008-0001 (providing that "the sentencing judge
shall impose the presumptive sentence provided by the guidelines
unless the judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to
impose a departure").
3. Defendant did file motions to suppress the presentence
investigation report (PSI) and to strike certain parts of the
PSI, arguing that the report contained hearsay statements and
that the report writer was biased and not qualified to issue the
opinions listed in the report.  The trial court denied those
motions.
4. In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that, "[o]ther than the
fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty
for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be
submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 490, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed
2d 435 (2000).  
5. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides, in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury[.]"  The Sixth Amendment is applicable to the
states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.  Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 149, 88 S Ct 1444,
20 L Ed 2d 491 (1968).     
6. For a full exposition on plain error see State v. Gornick,
340 Or 160, 166-67, ___ P3d ___ (2006) (explaining concept). 
7. Our emphasis on the documentary trail left by defendant should not necessarily be viewed as
requiring such a trail to defeat an assertion of error "apparent on the face of the record."