State v. Curtis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Curtis

722 P.2d 1288, 80 Or. App. 477, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3158

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 30, 1986

DocketC85-08-33369; C85-08-33370; CA A37973; CA A37974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 722 P.2d 1288 (State v. Curtis) 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. Curtis, 722 P.2d 1288, 80 Or. App. 477, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3158 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated criminal appeals, defendant appeals from judgments of conviction for two armed robberies, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgments of acquittal and, in the alternative, imposing concurrent five-year minimum sentences under ORS 161.610. His first assignment is not well taken.

As to the second, the state concedes that only one minimum sentence may be imposed, pursuant to ORS 161.610, when a defendant is sentenced for separate crimes in a single sentencing proceeding. State v. Haywood, 73 Or App 6, 697 P2d 977 (1975). However, the state suggests that we modify the trial court judgment and affirm it as modified. We cannot do that. State v. Allen, 301 Or 35, 717 P2d 1178 (1986); State v. Haywood, supra.

Judgments of conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated criminal appeals, defendant appeals from judgments of conviction for two armed robberies, asserting that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgments of acquittal and, in the alternative, imposing concurrent five-year minimum sentences under ORS 161.610. His first assignment is not well taken.

As to the second, the state concedes that only one minimum sentence may be imposed, pursuant to ORS 161.610, when a defendant is sentenced for separate crimes in a single sentencing proceeding. State v. Haywood, 73 Or App 6, 697 P2d 977 (1975). However, the state suggests that we modify the trial court judgment and affirm it as modified. We cannot do that. State v. Allen, 301 Or 35, 717 P2d 1178 (1986); State v. Haywood, supra.

Judgments of conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 P.2d 1288, 80 Or. App. 477, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 3158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-curtis-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack