Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Golden

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 25, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JACOB JEROME GOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted July 27, 2017.

          Lane County Circuit Court 15CR42641, 15CR47134; Lauren S. Holland, Judge.

          Zachary Lovett Mazer, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         In a consolidated appeal, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for multiple crimes. Defendant argues that the sentencing court plainly erred by entering a second amended judgment in one of the consolidated cases, which added an additional 30 months' imprisonment to defendant's sentence. Defendant contends that the trial court lacked authority to enter the second amended judgment once his sentence had been executed because that judgment impermissibly modifed the sentence that the court had initially imposed. Held: The trial court plainly erred by entering the second amended judgment. The court lacked authority to change the terms of defendant's sentence once that sentence had been executed. The Court of Appeals exercised its discretion to correct the trial court's error because correcting the error served the ends of justice.

         [293 Or.App. 15] In A161340, reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the frst amended judgment entered on November 17, 2015. In A161341, affrmed.

         [293 Or.App. 16] HADLOCK, J.

         In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's entry of a second amended judgment in case number 15CR42641. That second amended judgment reflects the trial court's restructuring of the sentencing package that the court had imposed in the original judgment and in a first amended judgment (which imposed the same sentence as the original judgment, with the addition of restitution). Defendant contends that the trial court lacked authority to enter the second amended judgment once his sentence had been executed because that judgment impermissibly modified the sentence that the court had initially imposed, with the result that defendant will serve a greater amount of time in prison. Defendant acknowledges that the argument he makes on appeal is unpreserved, but he contends that the trial court plainly erred and asks us to exercise our discretion to correct that error. For the reasons set out below, we agree with defendant that the trial court plainly erred. It is beyond dispute that the court lacked authority to change the terms of defendant's sentence once that sentence had been executed; it also is plain from the record that the court did, in fact, change the terms of defendant's sentence when it entered the second amendment judgment. Moreover, under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that justice is served by correcting the error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand in case number 15CR42641 with instructions to reinstate the first amended judgment.[1]

         For purposes of this appeal, the facts are undisputed. At a November 2015 hearing, the trial court imposed sentences in three separate cases in which defendant had been convicted of multiple crimes. First, the court addressed a 2013 case, case number 201320015, in which defendant had pleaded guilty to two counts of identity theft and had received a downward departure sentence of probation instead of the presumptive sentence, which would have included a 30-month term of incarceration on each count. At [293 Or.App. 17] the November 2015 hearing, the court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced defendant to consecutive 30-month terms of incarceration on each of the two counts in the 2013 case.[2] Defendant does not challenge that sentence in this appeal.

         As the hearing continued, the court next announced sentence in case number 15CR42641, in which defendant had pleaded guilty to one count of identity theft (Count 1) and two counts of first-degree theft (Count 2 and Count 4). The court sentenced defendant to 30 months' incarceration on each count and described how defendant would serve those 30-month terms: "Count [1] is consecutive to the 2013 case. It is concurrent to Count [2]. Count [2] is consecutive to Count [4]." Next, the court announced sentence in case number 15CR47134, in which defendant had pleaded guilty to two counts of identity theft. Again, the court sentenced defendant to 30 months incarceration on each of the two counts. It then stated, "They [the two 30-month terms] are concurrent to each other; however, they are consecutive to both other cases." The court concluded, "That's a total of 150 months in the Oregon Department of Corrections."

         On November 5, 2015, the court entered judgments accurately reflecting the sentences that it had announced orally. In case number 15CR42641, the November 5 judgment described how the court had sentenced defendant on the three counts in that case. With respect to Count 1, the judgment stated:

"Defendant is sentenced to the custody of Oregon Dept of Corrections [ODOC], for a period of 30 month(s). ***
“* * * *
"For the reasons stated on the record, this sentence shall be consecutive to the sentence(s) on the following cases: 201320015. This sentence shall be concurrent with *** Count 2."

         [293 Or.App. 18] For Count 2, the judgment stated:

"Defendant is sentenced to the custody of [ODOC], for a period of 30 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.