State v. Carter

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Carter

955 P.2d 342, 153 Or. App. 696, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 29, 1998

Docket94M3063; CA A86654

StatusPublished

This text of 955 P.2d 342 (State v. Carter) 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. Carter, 955 P.2d 342, 153 Or. App. 696, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 583 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawfully discarding dead animal carcasses, ORS 164.785, and two counts of failure to bury the carcass of a domestic animal, ORS 601.140. The complaint listed the first two counts as Class A misdemeanors and the third and fourth counts as violations. The court entered misdemeanor convictions on all the charges, and defendant appeals. He first argues that, when the prosecutor did not declare on the record that the state intended to treat Counts I and II as misdemeanors, by operation of law they were to proceed as violations. Former ORS 161.565(2); State v. Bonnin, 144 Or App 263, 926 P2d 830 (1996). Defendant also argues that entry of misdemeanor convictions on counts III and IV was error because the complaint alleged that the offenses were violations.¹

The state concedes that the court erred and that the misdemeanor convictions on all counts must be remanded for entry of a corrected judgment. We accept the state’s concession. Defendant’s remaining assignments of error do not require discussion.

Reversed and remanded for entry of corrected judgment showing convictions as violations and for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawfully discarding dead animal carcasses, ORS 164.785, and two counts of failure to bury the carcass of a domestic animal, ORS 601.140. The complaint listed the first two counts as Class A misdemeanors and the third and fourth counts as violations. The court entered misdemeanor convictions on all the charges, and defendant appeals. He first argues that, when the prosecutor did not declare on the record that the state intended to treat Counts I and II as misdemeanors, by operation of law they were to proceed as violations. Former ORS 161.565(2); State v. Bonnin, 144 Or App 263, 926 P2d 830 (1996). Defendant also argues that entry of misdemeanor convictions on counts III and IV was error because the complaint alleged that the offenses were violations.¹

The state concedes that the court erred and that the misdemeanor convictions on all counts must be remanded for entry of a corrected judgment. We accept the state’s concession. Defendant’s remaining assignments of error do not require discussion.

Reversed and remanded for entry of corrected judgment showing convictions as violations and for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

955 P.2d 342, 153 Or. App. 696, 1998 Ore. App. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carter-orctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack