State v. Chiew Tong Saechao

Citations: 256 Or. App. 369; 300 P.3d 287; 2013 WL 1755863; 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 469Docket: 100331048; A147305

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; April 24, 2013; Oregon; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes, including attempted aggravated murder and robbery, all stemming from a single incident involving a firearm. The trial court imposed six consecutive 60-month mandatory minimum sentences under ORS 161.610(4)(a), which were included in other sentences. Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to an aggregate of 210 months, with some sentences running concurrently. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court improperly applied multiple firearm minimums for the convictions arising from the same criminal transaction. Although the defense counsel's comments during sentencing indicated uncertainty about the necessity of multiple minimums, the defendant contended this preserved the issue for appeal and requested that the error be recognized as plain error. The state conceded that the trial court erred in imposing multiple firearm minimums, acknowledging that such an imposition is not permitted under precedent when multiple firearm felonies are convicted in a single trial. The appellate court agreed with the state’s concession and chose to correct the error, considering factors such as the absence of competing interests due to the state's concession, the nature of the case, and the interests of justice. The court noted that preservation of error principles were satisfied since both parties had the opportunity to address the issue.

In State v. Jones, the court examined the implications of sentencing errors and the potential for correction upon remand. The case referenced Medina, which stated that errors can be corrected with minimal judicial resources, and introduced Quintero-Martinez as a comparative case where a trial court similarly erred by imposing multiple firearm minimum sentences. In Quintero-Martinez, the trial court sentenced the defendant to a total of 120 months, including overlaps in minimum sentences that effectively had no impact on the aggregate term. The court found plain error but chose not to correct it, believing that the trial court would likely adjust the firearm minimums on remand without significantly altering the aggregate sentence needed for community safety and rehabilitation.

In contrast, the current case lacks the same clarity as Quintero-Martinez regarding the trial judge's intent for the aggregate sentence. The state argued that the judge’s comments indicated a likelihood of imposing the same total sentence upon remand. However, the defendant contended that these statements did not guarantee the same outcome, reflecting uncertainty about the trial court's intentions. The defendant also drew parallels to Medina, where multiple firearm minimums led to an aggregate sentence, further supporting the argument for a different outcome in their case. Ultimately, the court recognized the distinctions in intent and clarity between the cases, favoring the defendant's position.

On remand, the trial court has the discretion to resentence the defendant within the framework of ORS 161.610, potentially imposing a total incarceration period of 150 months or other variations. The court might run the firearm minimum concurrently with the 90-month sentence for attempted murder, leading to an aggregate sentence of 120 months. Alternatively, the court could impose the 120-month and 90-month sentences concurrently while applying the 60-month firearm minimum consecutively, resulting in a 180-month total. There is also the possibility of a mixed approach where parts of the 90-month sentence are served concurrently and parts consecutively, yielding a total sentence between 120 and 210 months. Despite the state’s concession that a remand could be beneficial to the defendant, the outcomes remain uncertain. The court concluded that a remand is warranted, considering the potential consequences for the defendant and the low cost of a resentencing hearing. The defendant was previously convicted of multiple charges, including two counts of attempted aggravated murder and several robbery and firearm-related offenses, leading to a total aggregate sentence of 210 months, with six separate 60-month firearm minimums imposed.