State v. Pusztai

“Generally, we will affirm a judgment, even after concluding that a trial court erred in sentencing, when the record shows that the trial court could have imposed the same total sentence without the error, and we are ‘completely confident’ that the trial court would impose the same sentence if the case were remanded for resentencing.” State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 287 Or App 526, 530, 404 P3d 1081 (2017) (quoting State v. Calderon-Ortiz, 222 Or App 1, 8, 191 P3d 808 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009)).

Defendant appealed the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress statements alleged to have been elicited without Miranda warnings. The Court was tasked with the determination of whether any error regarding the admission of statements was prejudicial to Defendant. State v. Dowty, 299 Or App 762, 763-64, 452 P3d 983 (2019). Defendant argued that upon questioning by the police officer, he was in compelling circumstances which would bar the State from using his statements. The State argued that the error was harmless because the lower court relied on a properly pleaded factor. The Court concluded that “generally, we will affirm a judgment, even after concluding that a trial court erred in sentencing, when the record shows that the trial court could have imposed the same total sentence without the error, and we are ‘completely confident’ that the trial court would impose the same sentence if the case were remanded for resentencing.” State v. Ortega-Gonsalez, 287 Or App 526, 530, 404 P3d 1081 (2017) (quoting State v. Calderon-Ortiz, 222 Or App 1, 8, 191 P3d 808 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009)). Remanded for entry of judgment.