State v. Parham, 456 P.3d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Parham, 456 P.3d 690 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Sutton (orctapp, 2025-09-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sutton (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (explaining that remand for resentencing “obviates the need to address [the] defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sutton (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (explaining that remand for resentencing “obviates the need to address [the] defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
cited Cited "see" State v. Parham
Or. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Parham, 302 Or App at 180 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Gunderman (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Reed- Hack, 313 Or App 728, 729-30 , 495 P3d 196 , rev den, 369 Or 69 (2021) (declining to reach the defendant’s argument regarding a condition of probation because “it may be raised on remand for the trial court to consider in the first instance”); see also State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (explaining that remand for resentenc- ing “obviates the need to address [the] defendant’s remain- ing claims of sentencing errors because the issues they con- cern may not arise on remand”).1 Attorney Fees.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Fasasi (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (explaining that remanding for resentencing obviated the need to address the defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors “because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Fasasi (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (explaining that remanding for resentencing obviated the need to address the defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors “because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Rychard (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Colgrove, 308 Or App 441, 445-46 , 480 P3d 1026 (2021) (not reaching addi- tional claims because the case already was being remanded for resentencing); see also State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (remand for resentencing “obvi- ate[d] the need to address defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kiemtore (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Parham, 302 Or App 179, 180 , 456 P3d 690 (2020) (remand for resentencing “obviate[d] the need to address defendant’s remaining claims of sentencing errors because the issues they concern may not arise on remand”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Parham
A166736.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Feb 5, 2020.
456 P.3d 690
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
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.