State v. Baldez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Baldez

76 P.3d 685, 189 Or. App. 528, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1305

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 17, 2003

Docket00-03-32249; A114664

StatusPublished

This text of 76 P.3d 685 (State v. Baldez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Baldez, 76 P.3d 685, 189 Or. App. 528, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1305 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction on one count of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court imposed departure sentences of six months in prison and 24 months of post-prison supervision on the delivery conviction and a concurrent sentence of six months in prison and 12 months of post-prison supervision on the possession conviction. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence imposed, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing the departure sentences. He asks that we reverse and remand for resent-encing. In the meantime, defendant finished serving the sentences. The state moved for summary affirmance on the ground that the appeal has become moot. Defendant does not argue to the contrary, but he observes that the proper disposition of the appeal is not to affirm but to dismiss. We agree with defendant. State v. Dick, 169 Or App 649, 650, 10 P3d 315 (2000) (dismissing the defendant’s challenge to trial court revocation of probation as moot because the defendant had served his sentence).

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction on one count of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court imposed departure sentences of six months in prison and 24 months of post-prison supervision on the delivery conviction and a concurrent sentence of six months in prison and 12 months of post-prison supervision on the possession conviction. On appeal, defendant challenges only the sentence imposed, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing the departure sentences. He asks that we reverse and remand for resent-encing. In the meantime, defendant finished serving the sentences. The state moved for summary affirmance on the ground that the appeal has become moot. Defendant does not argue to the contrary, but he observes that the proper disposition of the appeal is not to affirm but to dismiss. We agree with defendant. State v. Dick, 169 Or App 649, 650, 10 P3d 315 (2000) (dismissing the defendant’s challenge to trial court revocation of probation as moot because the defendant had served his sentence).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P.3d 685, 189 Or. App. 528, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baldez-orctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack