Summary
In Hill, likewise, we upheld the use of that factor because the court had determined that, in light of past probationary terms, the defendant" would not be deterred from criminal activity by being placed on probation, which is the presumptive sentence under the guidelines."
Summary of this case from State v. AllenOpinion
C90-07-34013; CA A67950
Submitted on record and briefs July 11, 1991
Affirmed March 25, 1992
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.
Dale Jacobs, Senior Judge.
Richard A. Weill, Corbett, filed the brief for appellant.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Defendant was sentenced on her conviction for theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055, to six months in jail and was required to complete a mandatory drug program. That is a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines. OAR 253-04-001. She argues that there are not substantial and compelling reasons for the departure.
Defendant's specific argument is that the court used her previous convictions to justify the departure and that those convictions were already accounted for in her criminal history score. She is wrong. The court's findings were that defendant had committed crimes during successive probationary periods and that she would not be deterred from criminal activity by being placed on probation, which is the presumptive sentence under the guidelines. The findings demonstrate substantial and compelling reasons for the departure. State v. Wilson, 111 Or. App. 147, 826 P.2d 1010 (1992).
Affirmed.