From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Knoke

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 10, 2006
205 Or. App. 667 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

0102729CR; A121494.

Submitted on record and briefs March 24, 2006.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 10, 2006.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County.

Cameron Wogan, Judge.

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

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Deits, Judge pro tempore.


PER CURIAM

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


After a trial to a jury, defendant was convicted of second-degree assault. He received an upward departure sentence based on the trial court's findings of "Permanent injury to victim; Harm and loss significantly greater than typical; Repetitive assaults unrelated to current crime; Lack of remorse; Assaults escalating in seriousness." On appeal, defendant makes various challenges to his conviction; we reject those challenges without discussion.

Defendant also challenges his sentence. Defendant argues that the trial court's imposition of a departure sentence violated the principles enunciated in 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), because the sentence was based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Defendant did not advance that challenge below, but argues that the sentence should be reviewed as plain error. Under our decision in State v. Ramirez, 205 Or App 113, 133 P3d 343 (2006), the sentence is plainly erroneous. For the reason set forth in Ramirez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Because we remand for resentencing, we need not address defendant's alternative argument regarding his sentence.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Knoke

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 10, 2006
205 Or. App. 667 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

State v. Knoke

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD W. KNOKE, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 10, 2006

Citations

205 Or. App. 667 (Or. Ct. App. 2006)
135 P.3d 357

Citing Cases

State v. Knoke

October 3, 2008. Appeal from the ( 205 Or App 667). Petitions for Review…