STATE v. JOHNSON, 206 Or. App. 713 (2006)

138 P.3d 900

0002-0556; A113627.Oregon Court of Appeals.Submitted on record May 25, 2006.
July 5, 2006.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County. Rick J. McCormick, Judge.

Scott L. Eisenstein, Fred C. Nachtigal, and Nachtigal, Eisenstein Associates filed the opening brief for appellant. James N. Varner filed the supplemental briefs for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, filed the briefs for respondent.

Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds[*] and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

Page 714

PER CURIAM

Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and, after a trial to the court, was convicted of two counts of criminal mistreatment in the first degree, one count of criminal mistreatment in the second degree, two counts of assault in the fourth degree, four counts of tampering with a witness, and three counts of coercion. The trial court imposed upward departure sentences with respect to three of the counts.

On appeal, defendant challenges his convictions and sentences. We reject defendant’s challenges to his convictions without discussion. With respect to his sentences, defendant argues that the departure sentences violated Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), an Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000), because they were based on facts that were not admitted by defendant or found by a jury. Defendant did not raise that issue to the trial court, but argues that the sentences should be reviewed for plain error. In light o State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 130 P3d 780 (2006), an State v. Perez, 340 Or 310, 131 P3d 168 (2006), imposition of the departure sentences was not plainly erroneous.

Affirmed.

Page 715