39 Or. App. 901 - State v. DeChenne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[the principal requirement in imposing a consecutive sentence is that there be a sufficiently definite event for commencement of the consecutive sentence in order that the Corrections Division may implement that sentence. 6 } Id. T14 Conversely, the cireumstances presented to Judge Reese required him to make the concurrent/consecutive determination at the probation revocation hearing in which he sought to impose and execute the previously suspended sentence. 7 Defendant, while on probation, incurred intervening convictions of aggravated robbery. And, at the time of the probation revocation hearing, Defendant was serving his aggravated robbery sentences at the Utah State Prison. Thus, in executing the previously imposed sentence, Judge Reese was required by section 76-3-401(1)(b) to determine the manner in which the theft sentence was to be served relative to the aggravated robbery sentences. 8 As such, Judge Reese did not err in determining whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively to one another. CONCLUSION T15 Section 76-3-401(1)(b) requires a court to decide whether the sentence for any felony offense(s) should be served concurrently or consecutively to another sentence being served at the time of the sentencing. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-401 (1)(b). Because the statute, under subsection (1)(b), requires such a determination only when a defendant is "already serving”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Anderson · State v. Anderson