State v. Byam

Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), the imposition of consecutive sentences is precluded where, in the absence of explicit evidence of multiple intents, the same act was undertaken to achieve the same end and concurrently violated multiple criminal statutes.

Defendant appealed conviction or first-degree robbery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUV). Defendant assigned error to the trial court's imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for the charges. On appeal, Defendant argued that the UUV was "merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious offense." Under ORS 137.123(5)(a), the imposition of consecutive sentences is precluded where, in the absence of explicit evidence of multiple intents, the same act was undertaken to achieve the same end and concurrently violated multiple criminal statutes. The Court held that Defendant's actions simultaneously and necessarily violated both ORS 164.415(1)(b) and ORS 164.135(1)(a) to achieve a unitary goal, and thus Defendant could not be subject to consecutive sentences for his conviction of both crimes. Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.