State v. Black

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Black

987 P.2d 530, 161 Or. App. 662, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1257

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 7, 1999

DocketC96-1890CR; CA A97307

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 987 P.2d 530 (State v. Black) 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. Black, 987 P.2d 530, 161 Or. App. 662, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

*663 PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks to modify the sentences he received after he was convicted of unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun, ORS 166.272, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Both convictions were pleaded as aggravated offenses committed with the use of or threatened use of a firearm, ORS 161.610. The court sentenced defendant to two concurrent minimum terms for crimes that arose from the same incident and were sentenced at the same time. ORS 161.610. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing him to two minimum sentences.

Despite the fact that the error was not preserved below, it is an error that is apparent on the face of the record and within our discretion to review. Defendant has shown no collateral consequences from the two concurrent sentences, but we nevertheless reverse and remand for resentencing. In State v. Hardesty, 298 Or 616, 695 P2d 569 (1985), the court affirmed this court’s holding that ORS 161.610 “contemplates only one * * * minimum sentence for the ‘first conviction’ involving a firearm even when the defendant is simultaneously convicted of two or more felony charges.” Id. at 618-19. That ruling was further clarified in State v. Dam, 111 Or App 15, 825 P2d 286, rev den 313 Or 300 (1992), when this court held that the holding in Hardesty applies even when the sentences are concurrent.

Convictions affirmed, remanded for resentencing.

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

*663 PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks to modify the sentences he received after he was convicted of unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun, ORS 166.272, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Both convictions were pleaded as aggravated offenses committed with the use of or threatened use of a firearm, ORS 161.610. The court sentenced defendant to two concurrent minimum terms for crimes that arose from the same incident and were sentenced at the same time. ORS 161.610. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in sentencing him to two minimum sentences.

Despite the fact that the error was not preserved below, it is an error that is apparent on the face of the record and within our discretion to review. Defendant has shown no collateral consequences from the two concurrent sentences, but we nevertheless reverse and remand for resentencing. In State v. Hardesty, 298 Or 616, 695 P2d 569 (1985), the court affirmed this court’s holding that ORS 161.610 “contemplates only one * * * minimum sentence for the ‘first conviction’ involving a firearm even when the defendant is simultaneously convicted of two or more felony charges.” Id. at 618-19. That ruling was further clarified in State v. Dam, 111 Or App 15, 825 P2d 286, rev den 313 Or 300 (1992), when this court held that the holding in Hardesty applies even when the sentences are concurrent.

Convictions affirmed, remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 P.2d 530, 161 Or. App. 662, 1999 Ore. App. LEXIS 1257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-black-orctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack