State v. Crane

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Crane

817 P.2d 771, 109 Or. App. 217, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1510

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 9, 1991

Docket87-10-36098, C87-11-36752 CA A63950 (Control), CA A63951

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 817 P.2d 771 (State v. Crane) 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. Crane, 817 P.2d 771, 109 Or. App. 217, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1510 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

*218 PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges the sentences entered after she pled guilty to charges of fraudulent use of a credit card, ORS 165.055, theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045, and two counts of forgery in the first degree. ORS 165.013. Our review of the trial court’s action is limited to determining whether the sentences exceed the maximum allowable by law or are cruel and unusual. ORS 138.050(l)(a).

The state concedes that the trial court exceeded its authority when it imposed a five-year term of imprisonment with a 30-month minimum on the charge of fraudulent use of a credit card. 1 Defendant pled guilty to credit card fraud to obtain money “in an amount less than [$200].” Under ORS 165.055(3)(a), fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain that amount of money is a class A misdemeanor, for which the maximum sentence of imprisonment is one year. ORS 161.615(1). We accept the state’s concession and, accordingly, vacate the sentence on that conviction and remand for resentencing.

We decline to review defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on her convictions, State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991), because she did not preserve the question below.

Convictions affirmed; sentence on the charge of violating ORS 165.055 vacated; remanded for resentencing.

1

Defendant correctly acknowledges that the other individual sentences imposed here are within the maximum allowable by statute.

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

*218 PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges the sentences entered after she pled guilty to charges of fraudulent use of a credit card, ORS 165.055, theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045, and two counts of forgery in the first degree. ORS 165.013. Our review of the trial court’s action is limited to determining whether the sentences exceed the maximum allowable by law or are cruel and unusual. ORS 138.050(l)(a).

The state concedes that the trial court exceeded its authority when it imposed a five-year term of imprisonment with a 30-month minimum on the charge of fraudulent use of a credit card. 1 Defendant pled guilty to credit card fraud to obtain money “in an amount less than [$200].” Under ORS 165.055(3)(a), fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain that amount of money is a class A misdemeanor, for which the maximum sentence of imprisonment is one year. ORS 161.615(1). We accept the state’s concession and, accordingly, vacate the sentence on that conviction and remand for resentencing.

We decline to review defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences on her convictions, State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991), because she did not preserve the question below.

Convictions affirmed; sentence on the charge of violating ORS 165.055 vacated; remanded for resentencing.

1

Defendant correctly acknowledges that the other individual sentences imposed here are within the maximum allowable by statute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

817 P.2d 771, 109 Or. App. 217, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crane-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack