State v. Barrett
| Decision Date | 05 July 1995 |
| Citation | 134 Or.App. 162,894 P.2d 1183 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Dennis Edward BARRETT, Appellant. 92-2662; CA A76662. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen.
Before DEITS, P.J., and De MUNIZ and HASELTON, JJ.
Defendant appealed from a departure sentence following his conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, and we affirmed from the bench. 127 Or.App. 754, 875 P.2d 545 (1994). The Supreme Court has remanded for reconsideration in the light of State v. Kephart, 320 Or. 433, 887 P.2d 774 (1994), and State v. Martin, 320 Or. 448, 887 P.2d 782 (1994). 320 Or. 503, 887 P.2d 789 (1995).
Defendant's plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree was pursuant to a plea bargain in which the state dismissed other charges and agreed not to recommend a departure sentence, and the parties stipulated to the applicable grid block. The sentencing court sua sponte imposed the departure sentence.
We conclude that, under Kephart and Martin, review is not precluded by ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1993). Our conclusion is dictated by Kephart's discussion of State v. Johnston, 120 Or.App. 165, 851 P.2d 1156, rev den 317 Or. 272, 858 P.2d 1314 (1993). In Johnston, the defendant had pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and stipulated to a grid block. The sentencing court imposed a departure sentence from which the defendant appealed, and we held that we could not review the claim of error under ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1989) and State v. Adams, 315 Or. 359, 847 P.2d 397 (1993). 1 In Kephart, the Supreme Court stated that the legislative history of the 1993 amendment to ORS 138.222(2)(d) shows that it was drafted to "prevent such a result" as occurred in Johnston. 320 Or. at 446, 851 P.2d 1156. We turn to the merits.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure because: (1) the court's finding that the victim suffered harm greater than typical for the offense, OAR 253-08-002(1)(b)(J), was impermissibly based on hearsay; and (2) defendant's admissions that, over a period of 20 years, he had engaged in "inappropriate sexual touching" and contact with at least 12 young women and girls, including family members, did not support a finding of "persistent involvement in similar offenses," OAR 253-08-002(1)(b)(D), in that such prior conduct had not resulted in criminal convictions. 2 We need not, and do not, address defendant's first argument because, regardless of the propriety of the trial court's finding on the subparagraph (J) departure factor, the court treated the persistent involvement factor as an independently sufficient basis for departure, and we conclude that departure on that basis was not erroneous. State v. Williams, 131 Or.App. 85, 87, 883 P.2d 918 (1994), on recon 133 Or.App. 191, 891 P.2d 3 (1995).
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered the statement in the presentence investigation report (PSI), which detailed defendant's admission of a history of "inappropriate sexual contact," including intercourse, with young women and girls, including family members. Defendant testified at the hearing and denied that he had told the PSI's author about incidents of intercourse, but admitted that he had engaged in inappropriate touching. The author of the PSI then testified, reiterating that defendant had, in fact, made the admissions detailed in the PSI. The court expressly found the PSI's author to be credible and observed: "What we have here is a man that, over the course of 20 years, looks like he has a history of sexually abusing young women." That history, even in the absence of criminal convictions, warranted departure. State v. Wilson, 111 Or.App. 147, 153, 826 P.2d 1010 (1992). 3
Affirmed.
1 Before State v. Adams, 315 Or. 359, 847 P.2d 397 (1993), we reviewed claims of error similar to those at issue here as reviewable under ORS 138.222(4)(a), which permits review in "any appeal" of a claim that the sentencing court failed to comply with requirements of law in imposing sentence. In Adams, the Supreme Court held that ORS 138.222(4) applied only to ORS 138.222(2)(e). Id. at 365, 847 P.2d 397.
2 In this case, defendant was convicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Loud
...are reflected in defendant's criminal record. State v. Kennedy, 113 Or.App. 134, 137, 831 P.2d 712 (1992); see also, State v. Barrett, 134 Or.App. 162, 165, 894 P.2d 1183, rev. den. 321 Or. 340, 898 P.2d 192 (1995) (uncharged conduct detailed in the presentencing report). The persistent inv......
-
State v. Cam
...jury may consider a defendant's prior criminal conduct, even if that conduct did not result in a criminal conviction. State v. Barrett, 134 Or.App. 162, 165, 894 P.2d 1183,rev. den.,321 Or. 340, 898 P.2d 192 (1995) (defendant's admitted history of sexually abusing young women could be consi......
-
Long v. Coursey
...436 (1995)). Under Oregon law, a court may base an upward departure sentence on a single aggravating factor. See State v. Barrett, 894 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Or. Ct. App. 1995); State v. Williams, 883 P.2d 918, 919 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). Where, as here, a court makes clear that each of the aggravat......
-
State v. Summerlyn
...even if that conduct did not result in a criminal conviction." Id. at 11. In support of that proposition, we cited State v. Barrett, 134 Or.App. 162, 165, 894 P.2d 1183, rev den, 321 Or. 340 (1995), and observed that, in Barrett, we had held that the "defendant's admitted history of sexuall......