Court Opinion

ID: 6945861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:25:32.62315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:07:54.646129
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of one count of assault in the first degree, ORS 163.185, and two counts of assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175. The trial court imposed an upward durational departure sentence on the first-degree assault conviction, based on a finding of persistent involvement in similar offenses. On appeal, defendant challenges only the departure 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.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.