State v. Russell

A trial court must evaluate "the nature of a defendant’s offenses * * * as well as the defendant’s willingness to commit more than a single offense" to decide whether it should impose consecutive sentences under subsection (5)(a). State v. Martinez, 270 Or. App. 423, 429 (2015).

Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery with a firearm and first-degree burglary with a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s decision to have Defendant serve the burglary sentence consecutively to the robbery sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that there was no finding that the robbery and burglary were sufficiently distinct in justifying consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123(5)(a). The State argued that the commission of the burglary was not a mere incidental violation of a separate statute during the commission of a more serious crime, but, instead, indicated the Defendant’s willingness to commit multiple criminal offenses. A trial court must evaluate "the nature of a defendant’s offenses * * * as well as the defendant’s willingness to commit more than a single offense" to decide whether it should impose consecutive sentences under subsection (5)(a). State v. Martinez, 270 Or. App. 423, 429 (2015). The Court held that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences because the evidence supported an inference that the burglary and the robbery were qualitatively distinct and not simply incidental to each other. Affirmed.