State v. Reinke
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: August 10, 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LEONARD LLOYD REINKE, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 090130185 A144138 Richard C. Baldwin, Judge. Submitted on July 01, 2011. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Deputy Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Armstrong, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for, inter alia, second-degree 3 kidnapping (Count 15). ORS 163.225. A recitation of the facts would not benefit the 4 bench, the bar, or the public. It is sufficient to note that the trial court sentenced 5 defendant as a dangerous offender, see ORS 161.725; ORS 161.737, to 280 months' 6 imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court's sentence on Count 15 7 was legally erroneous because (1) the sentence did not include both a determinate and 8 indeterminate term of incarceration and (2) the state's notice that it would be seeking a 9 dangerous offender sentence was insufficient because the "Oregon Constitution requires 10 that all essential or material elements of a crime be found by a grand jury and pleaded in 11 an indictment." With regard to defendant's first contention, the state concedes that the 12 trial court's "sentence is erroneous." We agree and accept the state's concession. See 13 State v. Isom, 201 Or App 687, 690, 120 P3d 912 (2005) ("[A] correct sentence for a 14 dangerous offender contains both a determinate mandatory minimum term of 15 incarceration and an indeterminate maximum term, not to exceed 30 years."). With 16 regard to defendant's second contention, we reject his constitutional arguments for the 17 same reasons stated in State v. Sanchez, 238 Or App 259, 242 P3d 692 (2010), rev den, 18 349 Or 655 (2011). 19 Reversed and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
