State v. Bucholz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that when interpreting a sentencing guideline rule * this court's \normal procedure for interpreting statutes applies\
• holding that “ [t] o preserve an error in the face of the possibility that [ORS 137.123] expressly permits consecutive sentencing in the situation at hand, a defendant who objects to lack of express findings to bring the case under [ORS 137.123(5
• stating that former OAR 253-04-006 is “the governing rule for calculation of criminal histories”
• declining to correct plain error in not making statutorily required findings because, “had the matter been called to the sentencing court’s attention, applicability of [the statute] might easily have been established”
• “Nothing in the wording of the criminal history rule excludes consideration of the conviction for a separately occurring crime merely because the two separate crimes are sentenced on the same day and in the same session of court.”
• defendant did not preserve challenge to trial court’s failure to make express findings in imposing consecutive sentences

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).