Summary
exercising discretion to correct sentencing error when court imposed a PPS term that exceeded the duration of PPS allowed under sentencing guidelines
Summary of this case from State v. DillonOpinion
10FE1450AB A153214.
11-13-2014
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ralph E. GLAZIER, Defendant–Appellant.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before ORTEGA, Presiding Judge, and DEVORE, Judge, and GARRETT, Judge.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.Defendant challenges his convictions for felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1). We reject defendant's first and second assignments of error without written discussion, and write to address defendant's challenge to his sentence. After a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of felon in possession of a firearm, the trial court merged the guilty verdicts, determined that defendant was within sentencing gridblock 6B, and sentenced him to 21.5 months of incarceration and three years of post-prison supervision (PPS).
In his third assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court committed plain error when it imposed three years of PPS. Specifically, defendant contends that the crime seriousness score for felon in possession of a firearm is “6”, OAR 213–017–0006(59), that the duration of PPS for a category 6 crime is two years, OAR 213–005–0002(2)(a), and that departures on the duration of PPS are not allowed. OAR 213–005–0002(1). The state concedes that, as stated by defendant, the imposition of three years of PPS is error. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons stated in State v. Delgado, 239 Or.App. 435, 438–40, 245 P.3d 170 (2010), rev. den., 350 Or. 423, 256 P.3d 1097 (2011), exercise our discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) to review and correct the PPS term as error apparent on the record. See Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 381–82, 823 P.2d 956 (1991) (court has discretion to review unpreserved error of law apparent on the record).
In his fourth assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court committed plain error when it determined that defendant's criminal history score was “B.” Our disposition of defendant's third assignment of error obviates the need to address his fourth assignment because we must remand the entire case for resentencing. See ORS 138.222(5)(a) (“If the appellate court determines that the sentencing court, in imposing a sentence in the case, committed an error that requires resentencing, the appellate court shall remand the entire case for resentencing.”). In doing so, we reject the state's suggestion that we remand the judgment solely for the purpose of correcting the term of PPS. On remand, defendant may present his argument concerning his proper criminal history score.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.