State v. Cesario
This text of 764 P.2d 981 (State v. Cesario) 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.
Opinion
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for carrying a deadly weapon with intent to use it unlawfully. He argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in imposing the minimum mandatory statutory sentence under ORS 161.610, because the indictment did not include the words “with a firearm” in the title.1 ORS 161.610(2) does not require inclusion of the words “with a firearm” in the title. It merely provides that the words “with a firearm” may be added to the title to indicate the aggravated nature of the crime. The legislative history submitted by the parties is consistent with this interpretation of ORS 161.610(2). The language of the charge in the indictment, that defendant did “possess a pistol * * * with intent to use it against another * * * and did attempt to use the weapon against her,” satisfies the provision of ORS 161.610(3) that,
“if a defendant is convicted of a felony having as an element the defendant’s use or threatened use of a firearm during the commission of the crime, the court shall impose at least the minimum term of imprisonment * *
Defendant’s other argument, that ORS 161.610 makes sense only when it is applied to a separate and distinct felony from that charged here, is specious.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
764 P.2d 981, 94 Or. App. 262, 1988 Ore. App. LEXIS 2137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cesario-orctapp-1988.