State v. Baker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Baker

828 P.2d 1061, 112 Or. App. 634, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 766

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Baker. Read the opinion of the Court — 100 Or. App. 31 →

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 22, 1992·No. 90C-20378; CA A68212·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of possession and delivery of controlled substances, ORS 475.992, both as “part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network.”

Defendant argues that the two convictions should have been merged. She did not raise that issue at sentencing, and we decline to address it.

She also contends that, because the scheme or network criterion is unconstitutionally vague, her sentences under the guidelines are unlawful. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). The state concedes, correctly, that the court erred in that respect.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of possession and delivery of controlled substances, ORS 475.992, both as “part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network.”

Defendant argues that the two convictions should have been merged. She did not raise that issue at sentencing, and we decline to address it.

She also contends that, because the scheme or network criterion is unconstitutionally vague, her sentences under the guidelines are unlawful. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). The state concedes, correctly, that the court erred in that respect.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Baker, 828 P.2d 1061, 112 Or. App. 634, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 766 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

828 P.2d 1061 (State v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related