State v. Piercy

No. 950             October 29, 2025              589

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
   pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
        except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
                   KAREN PIERCY,
              aka Karen Elisabeth Piercy,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
              Lincoln County Circuit Court
                 22CR28462; A185394

  Sheryl Bachart, Judge.
  Submitted September 12, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellant
Section, and Laura A. Frikert, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Remanded for resentencing.
590                                                        State v. Piercy

           EGAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
third-degree robbery. Defendant assigns error to her sentence, arguing that it plainly exceeds the maximum allowed
by law. The state concedes the error. We accept the state’s
concession and remand for resentencing.1
        Defendant pleaded guilty to third-degree robbery,
and stipulated to grid block 8-C of the felony sentencing
guidelines. The trial court sentenced her to 34 months’
imprisonment and 36 months’ post-prison supervision. She
argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that
exceeds the statutory maximum sentence by 10 months.
          ORS 161.605(3) provides that the maximum term
for defendant’s offense is 60 months. OAR 213-005-0002(4)
prohibits a PPS term that, “when added to the prison term,”
exceeds “the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence
for the crime of conviction.” Defendant was sentenced to a
total of 70 months. That exceeds the statutory maximum by
10 months. Defendant argues that the error is plain and that
we should exercise our discretion to correct it. The state has
conceded that the error is plain and that we should remand
for resentencing. We accept the state’s concession and exercise our discretion to correct the error in the interests of
justice, and because the error is grave.
           Remanded for resentencing.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.