State v. Parham ( 2020 )

179
Submitted January 16; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
February 5, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BILLY JAMES PARHAM,
aka Bill James Parham, aka Billy J. Parham,
aka Bill Parhan, aka Billy James Porham,
Defendant-Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
14CR04777; A166736
456 P3d 690
Lisa C. Greif, Judge. (Judgment)
Lorenzo A. Mejia, Judge. (Supplemental Judgment)
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Eric Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the opening brief and a sup-
plemental brief for appellant. Billy James Parham filed the
reply brief and a supplemental brief pro se.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Sercombe, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
180 State v. Parham
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial on one
count of first-degree criminal mistreatment, ORS 163.205,
three counts of aggravated identity theft, ORS 165.803, three
counts of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055, and one count of
first-degree aggravated theft, ORS 164.057. On appeal, he
raises numerous challenges to his convictions and sentence.
We reject defendant’s challenges to his convictions without
discussion. As for his challenges to his sentence, defendant
contends, among other things, that the trial court plainly
erred in imposing a sentence greater than the statutory
maximum indeterminate sentence of 60 months on defen-
dant’s conviction for first-degree criminal mistreatment. The
state concedes that the court plainly erred in this regard. As
both parties acknowledge, this court regularly exercises its
discretion to correct this type of error. We exercise our dis-
cretion to correct this error for the reasons set out in State
v. Ramos, 254 Or App 748, 749, 295 P3d 176 (2013) (the error
could significantly affect the defendant’s sentence, it can
be corrected with a minimum of judicial resources, and the
state has no interest in the defendant serving an unlaw-
ful sentence). This disposition obviates the need to address
defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors because
the issues they concern may not arise on remand.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.