Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2024

State v. Coats

State v. Coats
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided May 22, 2024 · Mooney
332 Or. App. 676

State v. Coats

Opinion

676 May 22, 2024 No. 338 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID RUSSELL COATS, Defendant-Appellant.

Linn County Circuit Court 18CR79549; A179704 Michael B. Wynhausen, Judge.

Submitted April 29, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kyleigh Gray, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge.

MOONEY, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 676 (2024) 677 MOONEY, J.

Defendant pleaded no contest to second-degree assault in accordance with the negotiated “Petition to Enter Plea” that he filed in the trial court. That petition provided that the “parties agree to argue for consecutive or concur- rent 70-months to present sentence.” Following arguments on that issue, the trial court imposed the required manda- tory minimum sentence of 70 months of incarceration, ORS 137.700(2)(H), and it ran that sentence consecutively to a previously imposed sentence on a completely unrelated case.

Defendant appeals the judgment of conviction, assigning error to the trial court’s decision to run the sentence con- secutively, arguing that the trial court did not understand its authority “to impose a partially consecutive sentence.”

But ORS 137.123 authorized the imposition of a consecutive sentence here and the trial court explained its reasons for exercising its discretion to do so. There would be no benefit to the bench, the bar, or the public to recite the underlying or procedural facts. Suffice it to say that we have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion nor misunderstand its authority in imposing the sentence as it did.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.