Defendant appeals his sentences on one count of rape in the first degree, one count of rape in the second degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree. He argues that the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite findings under ORS 137.123. In a supplemental brief, defendant argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences and of a departure sentence violate the rule of law announced in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). Although none of defendant’s arguments were preserved in the trial court, we have held that imposition of a departure sentence on each of the grounds stated by the trial court here constitutes plain error. State v. Perez, 196 Or App 364, 102 P3d 705 (2004), rev allowed, 338 Or 488 (2005). For the reason set forth in Perez, we exercise our discretion to correct the error. Because that error requires resentencing on all counts, we need not address defendant’s remaining challenges to his sentences.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.