- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
- Date Filed: 09-05-2019
- Case #: A162748
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, P.J. for the Court; DeHoog, J; & Schuman, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed convictions for one count of First-Degree Sodomy, three counts of First-Degree Sexual Abuse, and one count of Coercion. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's imposition of partly consecutive sentences on his convictions for Sodomy and two of the counts of Sexual Abuse. On appeal, Defendant argued that consecutive sentences were not authorized under either ORS 137.123(a) or (b). “[A] court must (1) determine which offense is the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated; (2) compare the harms—real or potential—that arose from that offense with those that arose from the offense to which it will be sentenced consecutively; (3) determine whether the offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or risked causing any harm that the other did not; and, if so, (4) determine whether the harm that is unique to that offense is greater than or qualitatively different from the harms caused or threatened by the other.” State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 178 P3d 333 (2008). The Court held that the evidence was sufficient because the harms associated with one count were greater than or qualitatively different from the harms caused or threatened by the other count. The Court further held that the record gave way to an inference that Defendant's conduct in those two counts of Sexual Abuse were not incidental to the conduct that formed the basis for the First-Degree Sodomy charge. Affirmed.