Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

316 Or. App. 692

State v. Morris

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 29, 2021

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2021-12-29

Applies OR 163 § 163.160 · OR 163 § 163.187 · OR 163 § 163.225

Remanded for resentencing · Decided 2021-12-29

                                    692

   Submitted December 2; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
  December 29, 2021; petition for review denied April 21, 2022 (
369 Or 676
)


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                ANTONIO MICHAEL MORRIS,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                 Lincoln County Circuit Court
                     19CR48742; A173378
                                
501 P3d 105


  Amanda R. Benjamin, Judge pro tempore.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as 
316 Or App 692
 (2021)                            693

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant appeals his convictions and sentences
for second-degree kidnapping, ORS 163.225, felony strangulation, ORS 163.187, and felony fourth-degree assault, ORS
163.160. He was tried to the court, but argues on appeal
that his waiver of jury trial rights was not knowing and
voluntary; we reject that argument for the reasons set forth
in State v. Austin, 
316 Or App 56
, 
501 P3d 1136
 (2021), and
State v. Gomez, 
310 Or App 693
, 
485 P3d 314
 (2021). He also
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his kidnapping conviction, and the court’s imposition of a departure sentence on that conviction; we reject those arguments
without discussion. Finally, defendant asserts that the trial
court plainly erred in imposing incorrect post-prison supervision terms on all of the offenses. He notes that none of
the post-prison supervision terms imposed in this case were
of the correct length as specified in OAR 213-005-0002(2).
The state concedes that defendant is correct as to that issue,
and also points out that the post-prison supervision term
for the kidnapping conviction failed to take into account the
provisions of OAR 213-005-0002(4), which would limit the
combined prison and post-prison supervision terms for that
offense to a total of 10 years. We agree and accept the concession, and we remand for the court to consider on resentencing the proper application of OAR 213-005-0002.
        Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

/316/orapp/692 · .json · Public domain