From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Gallino

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 28, 2005
203 Or. App. 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

20-03-16607; A124009.

Submitted on record and briefs November 30, 2005.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed December 28, 2005.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County. Ted Carp, Judge.

Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and 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

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant was convicted of felony violating a court's stalking protective order. ORS 163.750(2)(b)(B). The trial court imposed an upward durational departure sentence based on findings that defendant was on probation at the time of the offense, that there had been repeated victimization of the same victim, that there was persistent involvement in similar offenses, and that the harm to the victim was greater than typical. 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 were not found by 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.


Summaries of

State v. Gallino

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 28, 2005
203 Or. App. 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

State v. Gallino

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOSEPH LAVERN GALLINO, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 28, 2005

Citations

203 Or. App. 539 (Or. Ct. App. 2005)
124 P.3d 1294

Citing Cases

State v. Gallino

BREWER, C. J. This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated our prior decision,…

State v. Gallino

October 3, 2008. Appeal from the ( 203 Or App 539). Petitions for Review…