State v. Rojas-Montalvo
Citation | 957 P.2d 163,153 Or.App. 222 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1998 |
Docket Number | A,ROJAS-MONTALV |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Antonioppellant. 95C23084; CA A94143. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
David C. Degner, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Tammy A. Hawkins, Certified Law Student.
Before WARREN, P.J., and EDMONDS and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
Defendant pleaded guilty to possession and delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to consecutive sentences. He challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences by the trial court. Defendant also asserts that the trial court erred by failing to place him in column I when it sentenced him for his secondary offense of delivery of a controlled substance. We remand for resentencing.
Police entered defendant's home on September 8, 1995, pursuant to a valid search warrant. They found defendant in a closet counting money. Nearby, there was a small scale, a box of baggies, a pager, some small plastic bindles containing cocaine and a large margarine tub that contained more cocaine. Defendant was charged with possession and delivery of cocaine, ORS 475.992(1) and (4), 1 and pleaded guilty to both charges.
At sentencing, the trial court established the presumptive sentence at 21 to 22 months on the possession charge, based on an 8-G grid block finding. The court departed upward to 44 months, based on the aggravating factor that defendant was on probation at the time of conviction. On the delivery charge, the court sentenced defendant to 22 months to be served consecutively, also based on an 8-G grid block finding.
Defendant argues that the court erred by sentencing him to consecutive sentences. We review consecutive sentences for errors of law appearing on the record, ORS 138.220; State v. Sumerlin, 139 Or.App. 579, 588, 913 P.2d 340 (1996); State v. Racicot, 106 Or.App. 557, 561, 809 P.2d 726 (1991), and whether the sentence exceeds the maximum allowable by law, ORS 138.050(1)(a). Consecutive sentences are governed by ORS 137.123, which provides, in part:
The trial court made findings under both subsections (a) and (b) to support its imposition of consecutive sentences. Defendant argues that because he pleaded guilty to a "constructive" delivery of cocaine, "[t]he court cannot find that the possession of cocaine 'was not merely an incidental violation of a different statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime.' " He is mistaken.
In Sumerlin, the defendant was convicted of both reckless driving and driving under the influence of intoxicants, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences. 139 Or.App. at 589, 913 P.2d 340. We held that, by speeding while driving under the influence, the defendant showed a willingness to commit both offenses. Id. We stated:
The same is true here. A defendant need not possess a controlled substance in order to be found guilty of delivery, see State v. Sargent, 110 Or.App. 194, 198, 822 P.2d 726 (1991), and being in possession does not necessarily imply delivery. Therefore, the offenses are not merely "incidental" to one another.
Defendant argues that, because this is a "constructive" delivery charge, the two are simply incidental to one another. The theory of delivery...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bush
...on those counts without shifting any of the convictions to column I of the sentencing guidelines gridblock. Cf. State v. Rojas-Montalvo, 153 Or.App. 222, 226, 957 P.2d 163, rev. den. 327 Or. 192, 961 P.2d 218 (1998) (holding that when sentences are imposed consecutively for offenses arising......
-
State v. Monro
...179, 180, 230 P.3d 101 (2010); State v. Davidson, 208 Or.App. 672, 673, 145 P.3d 276 (2006); [256 Or.App. 497]State v. Rojas–Montalvo, 153 Or.App. 222, 226, 957 P.2d 163,rev. den.,327 Or. 192, 961 P.2d 218 (1998); State v. Lundstedt, 139 Or.App. 111, 114, 911 P.2d 349 (1996), and we do so h......
-
State v. Anderson
...to justify the imposition of consecutive sentences for offenses that were factually closely related. See, e.g., State v. Rojas-Montalvo, 153 Or.App. 222, 957 P.2d 163, rev. den., 327 Or. 192, 961 P.2d 218 (1998) (the defendant's possession of large quantity of cocaine, along with implements......
-
State v. Easton
...that it is." Id. at 607, 91 P.3d 774 (emphasis in original). That holding also is consistent with our decisions in State v. Rojas-Montalvo, 153 Or.App. 222, 957 P.2d 163, rev. den., 327 Or.192, 961 P.2d 218 (1998) (ORS 138.050 did not bar challenge to consecutive sentences), and Sumerlin, 1......