Perez v. Persson

ORS 137.123(1) provides that a sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence, subject to various specific limitations. There is nothing in the language of that statute that limits the court in the exercise of its discretion from imposing partially consecutive sentences and concurrent sentences.

Perez, who pled guilty to four counts of aggravated murder in the underlying criminal proceeding, petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The post-conviction court granted Perez partial relief, and he sought review, claiming that the court should have granted additional relief. Specifically, Perez asserted that the agreed-to partially-concurrent and partially-consecutive minimum terms were not, in fact, possible, despite the post-conviction court's implementation of them through the agreed-upon language. ORS 137.123(1) provides that a "sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence." There is nothing in the language of that statute that limits the court in the exercise of its discretion from imposing partially consecutive sentences and concurrent sentences. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the post-conviction court correctly determined that Perez was entitled to relief, and granted appropriate relief. Affirmed.