From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Baker

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 30, 2006
207 Or. App. 516 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

concluding that it was error apparent on the record to impose a sentence for a felony DUII conviction greater than the maximum indeterminate sentence of 60 months

Summary of this case from State v. Mascarenas

Opinion

No. 041250; A127486.

Submitted on record and briefs July 7, 2006.

August 30, 2006.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Columbia County. Ted Grove, Judge.

Patrick M. Ebbett and Chilton, Ebbett Rohr, LLC, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Attorney-In-Charge, Criminal Appeals Unit, filed the brief for respondent.

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


PER CURIAM

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant was convicted of one count of felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, and one count of driving while suspended, ORS 811.182. On the DUII conviction, the trial court sentenced defendant to an upward departure sentence of 60 months' imprisonment and imposed a 24-month post-prison supervision term. On the remaining conviction, the court imposed a sentence of six months' probation. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in imposing an incarceration term and post-prison supervision term on the DUII conviction that exceeds the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for that offense. The state concedes that the sentence was erroneous. We agree and therefore accept the state's concession.

The maximum indeterminate sentence for felony DUII a Class C felony, is five years. ORS 161.605. OAR 213-005-0002(4) provides that the "term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime[.]" Although defendant did not preserve that claim of error, we conclude that it is apparent on the face of the record. State v. Remme, 173 Or App 546, 565-66, 23 P3d 374 (2001). For the reasons enunciated in Remme, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Baker

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 30, 2006
207 Or. App. 516 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)

concluding that it was error apparent on the record to impose a sentence for a felony DUII conviction greater than the maximum indeterminate sentence of 60 months

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

State v. Baker

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DERRICK COE BAKER, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 30, 2006

Citations

207 Or. App. 516 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
142 P.3d 121

Citing Cases

State v. McFadden

Nonetheless, we have previously concluded that this type of error is apparent on the face of the record and…

State v. Mascarenas

In the first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a…