State of Oregon v. Sanchez-Chavez

The “ultimate question” to determine if a consecutive sentence is permitted under ORS 137.123 “is whether the record includes discrete facts supporting an inference that the defendant acted with a willingness to commit multiple offenses.” State v. Tajipour, 299 Or App 219, 450 P3d 523 (2019), rev’don other grounds, 366 Or 551, 466 P3d 58 (2020).

Defendant appealed a conviction of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s “imposition of consecutive sentences for his two convictions.” On appeal, Defendant argued that there was not evidence that he “intended to commit distinct criminal acts;” therefore, the sentences should not be consecutive. The State contended that a consecutive sentence was permitted as Defendant choosing “to commit both acts indicate a willingness to commit multiple offenses.” The “ultimate question” to determine if a consecutive sentence is permitted under ORS 137.123 “is whether the record includes discrete facts supporting an inference that the defendant acted with a willingness to commit multiple offenses.” State v. Tajipour, 299 Or App 219, 450 P3d 523 (2019), rev’don other grounds, 366 Or 551, 466 P3d 58 (2020). The Court found that the trial court’s evidence was “legally insufficient to establish his willingness to commit more than one offense,” because the evidence did not show that the acts were “temporally or qualitatively distinct.” Therefore, consecutive sentences should not have been given. Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.