State v. Larson

The Court must have evidence that the defendant intended to commit multiple criminal acts, typically shown by temporal or qualitative deference to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Porter, 313 Or App 565 (2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction of DUII, refusal to test for intoxicants, driving while revoked, and reckless driving. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s imposition of a suspended but consecutive sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued the remaining sentence, if imposed, violated ORS 137.123, which prohibits consecutive sentences with certain exceptions. In response, the State argued that the issue was not ripe for review because the trial court suspended the sentence. The Court summarily rejected the ripeness argument and held that the statute for revoking suspended sentences left no judicial discretion, and therefore, the challenge to the sentence’s validity was appropriate regardless of the suspension. The Court must have evidence that the defendant intended to commit multiple criminal acts, typically shown by temporal or qualitative deference to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Porter, 313 Or App 565 (2021). On the merits, the Court held that the record did not support a finding that Defendant intended to commit multiple offenses. Rather, the nature of each of Defendant’s crimes stemmed from one act, the decision to drive. Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.