From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Wierson

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 28, 2007
216 Or. App. 318 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)

Summary

exercising our Ailes discretion under similar circumstances because the state had no interest in having the defendant serve an unlawful sentence

Summary of this case from State v. Aitken

Opinion

Nos. C053516CR; A131681.

Submitted on record and briefs October 19, 2007.

November 28, 2007.

Appeal from the Washington County Circuit Court, Mark Gardner, Judge.

James N. Varner filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Christina M. Hutchins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Defendant was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175, and was sentenced to a prison term of 27 months, followed by three years of post-prison supervision. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in imposing a sentence in violation of OAR 213-005-0002(4), which provides that a "term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crimes of conviction." Because the crime of conviction is a Class C felony, the maximum indeterminate sentence is five years. ORS 161.605(3). Therefore, defendant reasons, his sentence, which, including post-prison supervision, totals 63 months, exceeds the maximum by three months.

Although defendant did not preserve the error in the trial court, he asserts that the error is apparent on the face of the record, and urges this court to exercise its discretion to correct it. See State v. McCormick, 185 Or App 491, 60 P3d 1089 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 391 (2003) (correcting similar error). The state concedes that the error is apparent on the face of the record, but argues that this court should not exercise its discretion to correct it because it means, at most, that defendant will serve an additional three months of post-prison supervision. Because the state has no valid interest in having defendant serve an unlawful sentence, we choose to exercise our discretion to address the error.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Summaries of

State v. Wierson

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 28, 2007
216 Or. App. 318 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)

exercising our Ailes discretion under similar circumstances because the state had no interest in having the defendant serve an unlawful sentence

Summary of this case from State v. Aitken

exercising our Ailes discretion under similar circumstances because the state had no interest in having the defendant serve an unlawful sentence

Summary of this case from State v. Gutierrez
Case details for

State v. Wierson

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERIC LESLIE WIERSON…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 28, 2007

Citations

216 Or. App. 318 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)
172 P.3d 281

Citing Cases

State v. Calhoun

Additionally, in a third assignment of error, he argues that the trial court committed plain error in…

State v. Williams

The state concedes that the court erred in imposing total sentences of 96 months. The state also concedes…