Orchard v. Mills

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 12-29-2011
  • Case #: A142729
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, C.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To constitute a "criminal episode" under ORS 131.505(4) so as to warrant a "shift-to-I" criminal history score, the defendant's criminal actions must be continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place and circumstances, but that such conduct was directed towards the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.

Defendant appealed the post-conviction court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant argued that the sentencing court improperly adjusted his criminal history score, as required by OAR 213-012-0020(2)(a)(B), and that his attorney was inadequate because he failed to object to the sentencing court’s error in adjusting the criminal history score. Under OAR 213-012-0020(2)(a)(B), when a trial court sentences a defendant to multiple consecutive sentences, it must apply “column I” of the criminal history scale. However, a “shift-to-I” may only occur if the consecutive sentences are the result of crimes arising from a single “criminal episode.” In rejecting the defendant’s first point of error, the Court of Appeals held that defendant’s conduct did not a criminal episode as defined by ORS 131.505(4), because his convictions of second-degree assault, failure to perform the duties of a driver, and seven counts of felon in possession of a firearm were not “continuous and uninterrupted conduct that establishes at least one offense and is so joined in time, place, and circumstances that such conduct is directed to the accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” Thus, because the defendant’s actions were not intended to achieve a single criminal objective, the trial court need not apply the “shift-to-I” rule. Affirmed

Advanced Search