State v. Monro, 301 P.3d 435

Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of multiple offenses arising from several criminal episodes.
On appeal, defendant raises six assignments of error; four are rejected without discussion.
Defendant’s third and fourth assignments claim plain error for failing to apply the shift-to-column I rule when sentencing Count 32 (first-degree robbery) consecutive to Count 29 (same episode) and Count 1 (different victim).
The court agrees the trial court failed to apply the shift-to-column I rule to Count 32 and remands for resentencing.
The court rejects applying the rule to Count 13 because it involves felon in possession with a different procedural context and notes that Measure 11 rules may apply differently.
Remand for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court plainly err by not applying the shift-to-column I rule to Count 32?	State argues the rule should apply when consecutive sentences arise from the same episode.	Armstrong argues the rule should have been applied to determine the proper consecutive term.	Yes; remand for resentencing to apply the rule.

State v. Mayes, 234 Or App 707, 229 P3d 628 (2010) (explains shift-to-column I applicability; not for statutorily mandated sentences)
State v. Hicks, 249 Or App 196, 275 P3d 195 (2012) (statutory sentences outside shift-to-column I scope)
State v. Langdon, 151 Or App 640, 950 P2d 410 (1997) (Measure 11 sentences not subject to 200/400% guideline limits)
State v. Young, 183 Or App 400, 52 P3d 1102 (2002) (repeat property offender statute limits not applicable to guideline constraints)
State v. Doty, 240 Or App 557, 247 P3d 343 (2011) (plain error for shift-to-column I recognized)
State v. Diaz-Rivera, 235 Or App 179, 230 P3d 101 (2010) (shift-to-column I discussed in context of multiple offenses)