State v. Beaty

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Beaty

842 P.2d 817, 117 Or. App. 525, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2556

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 30, 1992·No. 91-3312-C1; CA A73150·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the sentence imposed after his conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(1). The trial court ordered that no credit for time served in jail be applied. The state concedes that the trial court erred. State v. Jones, 113 Or App 228, 229, 832 P2d 459 (1992).

We accept the concession that the case should be remanded for resentencing. However, the record does not show definitively that defendant’s pre-trial incarceration was for the manufacturing crime. On remand, the sentencing court should make that determination and resentence defendant accordingly. State v. Barber, 113 Or App 603, 605, 832 P2d 51 (1992).

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the sentence imposed after his conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(1). The trial court ordered that no credit for time served in jail be applied. The state concedes that the trial court erred. State v. Jones, 113 Or App 228, 229, 832 P2d 459 (1992).

We accept the concession that the case should be remanded for resentencing. However, the record does not show definitively that defendant’s pre-trial incarceration was for the manufacturing crime. On remand, the sentencing court should make that determination and resentence defendant accordingly. State v. Barber, 113 Or App 603, 605, 832 P2d 51 (1992).

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Beaty, 842 P.2d 817, 117 Or. App. 525, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2556 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

842 P.2d 817 (State v. Beaty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related