State v. Traylor

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a) the fact that defendant was more destructive of property than he needed to be in the manner in which he conducted the burglary permits the inference that defendant was willing to commit the separate offense of criminal mischief in addition to the offense of burglary.

Defendant appealed convictions for first-degree theft, second-degree burglary, first-degree criminal mischief, and failure to appear. Defendant challenges the trial courts decision to impose consecutive sentences on the burglary and criminal-mischief convictions. Defendant cut a hole in a fence surrounding a trailer manufacturer and passed thought the fence. Defendant proceeded to cut through the metal door to the shop and made other wholes in the walls of the building. Once inside, Defendant cut copper wire that leads of several welding machines in the shop. At sentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123; the court found that the criminal mischief conviction did not represent merely an incidental violation of the criminal mischief statute. The trial court found that Defendant did not need to cause the extended property destruction in order to commit the burglary. The Court found that record supported the trial court's factual finding that at least some of the property damage that Defendant caused was not necessary for the commission of the burglary. The Court held that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences on the burglary and criminal-mischief convictions. Affirmed.