From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marks

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 2009
206 P.3d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 07P50273; A136456.

Submitted December 5, 2008.

April 22, 2009.

Appeal from the Polk County Circuit Court.

Charles E. Luukinen, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Amanda J. Austin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.


PER CURIAM

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant was convicted of criminal contempt of court for failing to pay child support. ORS 33.065. The trial court imposed a six-year term of probation. On appeal, defendant argues that the maximum term of probation for his crime is five years, ORS 137.010(4), and that the trial court's imposition of a six-year term constitutes error apparent on the face of the record under ORAP 5.45. The state concedes that the court plainly erred and that the case should be remanded for resentencing. We agree that the error is apparent on the face of the record and, given the gravity of the error and the state's concession, exercise our discretion to correct it.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Marks

Oregon Court of Appeals
Apr 22, 2009
206 P.3d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)
Case details for

State v. Marks

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONTAE LAMAR MARKS…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 22, 2009

Citations

206 P.3d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 2009)
206 P.3d 1102

Citing Cases

State v. Erb

The state concedes that defendant's term of probation is plainly erroneous, and we accept the concession. We…