State v. Norris

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment for two counts of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle is appropriate when the record contains "discrete facts" that support an inference that the defendant was willing to commit more than one criminal offense.

Defendant appealed the imposition of consecutive sentences for his conviction on two counts of Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5)(a), which grants a trial court discretionary authority to do so in cases where there is “an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense.” The Court primarily cited its decision in State v. Warren, 168 Or App 1,6 (2000) which held that “imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment is appropriate where the record contains ‘discrete facts’ to support an inference that the defendant was willing to commit more than one criminal offense." Even under the deferential standard of review the Court found that no such “discrete facts” existed on the record. Remanded for resentencing.