State v. Camel
510 P.2d 576, 13 Or. App. 508, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1201
Opinion
The only issue of substance in this criminal appeal is defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in taking into consideration at the time of sen-[509] fencing defendant’s prior arrest and juvenile record. The Oregon Supreme Court and this court have previously held that such is proper. See, State v. Scott, 237 Or 390, 390 P2d 328 (1964); State v. Hargon, 2 Or App 553, 470 P2d 383 (1970). Accord, Williams v. New York, 337 US 241, 69 S Ct 1079, 93 L Ed 1337 (1949). See also, ORS 419.567 (3) (a).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Camel, 510 P.2d 576, 13 Or. App. 508, 1973 Ore. App. LEXIS 1201 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
510 P.2d 576 (State v. Camel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Williams v. New York
337 U.S. 241 (Supreme Court, 1949)
State v. Scott
390 P.2d 328 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
State v. Hargon
470 P.2d 383 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1970)