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. Zoske

Court of Appeals of Oregon

February 6, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JEREMY LINN ZOSKE, Defendant-Appellant.

          On appellant's petition for reconsideration fled December 5, 2018. Opinion fled November 21, 2018. 295 Or.App. 86, __ P.3d __.

          Lincoln County Circuit Court 140315 Sheryl Bachart, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, for petition.

          Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

         Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to.

         [296 Or.App. 83] PER CURIAM.

         Defendant petitions for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Zoske, 295 Or.App. 86, __ P.3d __ (2018), in which we remanded the case for resentencing and otherwise affirmed. He argues that our disposition of the case was incorrect.[1] We allow reconsideration, and adhere to our former opinion.

         Defendant appealed, raising two assignments of error related to sentencing. We agreed with defendant's first assignment of error that the trial court had plainly erred by imposing a work-crew condition as well as a sentence of incarceration. Id. at 87. We determined that the case should be remanded for resentencing, and that, in light of that remand, we did not need to resolve the second assignment of error. Id. at 88 (citing State v. Crow, 292 Or.App. 196, 197, 418 P.3d 779 (2018)).

         Defendant argues in his petition for reconsideration that "[t]he correct disposition in this case is reversal of the portions of the judgment imposing work crew and a probation violation fee and remand for entry of a judgment deleting those terms."[2] Defendant points out that, in resolving the first assignment of error, we drew an analogy between the imposition of the work-crew condition and judgments in which courts have plainly erred by imposing no-contact orders in addition to sentences of incarceration. Citing our recent decision in State v. Coventry, 290 Or.App. 463, 464, 415 P.3d 97 (2018), he argues that we have determined that [296 Or.App. 84] the correct disposition is to reverse the portion of the judgment containing the no-contact order, and remand for entry of a judgment omitting the unauthorized order. But dispositions are not necessarily categorical determinations based only on the type of error involved. They also may depend on the circumstances in a particular case. See, e.g., State v. RubiolGalligan, 248 Or.App. 130, 140, 273 P.3d 238 (2012) (declining to remand because "there do not remain options that the trial court permissibly could adopt on resentenc-ing, *** that relate to this error" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Langmayer, 239 Or.App. 600, 601, 244 P.3d 894 (2010) (remanding for resentencing where no contact provision may have been intended to be a recommendation).

         In this case, which was in a plain-error posture, we did not rule out the possibility that the trial court could find some other way to effectuate its intention in sentencing defendant. For that reason, we concluded that a remand for resentencing was appropriate, and we adhere to that conclusion.

         Reconsideration allowed; former opinion adhered to.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendant makes additional arguments, which we reject without written ...


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.