State v. Delgado

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Delgado

412 P.3d 1246, 290 Or. App. 713

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 7, 2018

DocketA162736

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 412 P.3d 1246 (State v. Delgado) 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. Delgado, 412 P.3d 1246, 290 Or. App. 713 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*714Defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, and one count of fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, for punching the victim. On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that he (as opposed to his codefendant) caused the victim's injuries and that the trial court plainly erred by not acquitting him sua sponte on each of those counts. We reject those claims of error without discussion.

Defendant also argues that the trial court plainly erred by entering two separate convictions, because the count of fourth-degree assault was charged as a lesser-included offense of the third-degree assault count. See State v. Noe , 242 Or. App. 530, 532, 256 P.3d 166 (2011) (holding that "convictions for conduct in a criminal episode that violates two or more statutory provisions merge if all of the elements in one provision are subsumed into the elements of the other provision"). The state concedes that the trial court should have entered a single conviction for third-degree assault and that the case must be remanded to correct that error. We agree, accept the concession, and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Camacho-Alvarez , 225 Or. App. 215, 217, 200 P.3d 613 (2009), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Convictions for third-degree assault and fourth-degree assault reversed and remanded for entry of a single conviction for third-degree assault; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*714Defendant was convicted of one count of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165, and one count of fourth-degree assault, ORS 163.160, for punching the victim. On appeal, defendant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to show that he (as opposed to his codefendant) caused the victim's injuries and that the trial court plainly erred by not acquitting him sua sponte on each of those counts. We reject those claims of error without discussion.

Defendant also argues that the trial court plainly erred by entering two separate convictions, because the count of fourth-degree assault was charged as a lesser-included offense of the third-degree assault count. See State v. Noe , 242 Or. App. 530, 532, 256 P.3d 166 (2011) (holding that "convictions for conduct in a criminal episode that violates two or more statutory provisions merge if all of the elements in one provision are subsumed into the elements of the other provision"). The state concedes that the trial court should have entered a single conviction for third-degree assault and that the case must be remanded to correct that error. We agree, accept the concession, and, for the reasons expressed in State v. Camacho-Alvarez , 225 Or. App. 215, 217, 200 P.3d 613 (2009), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Convictions for third-degree assault and fourth-degree assault reversed and remanded for entry of a single conviction for third-degree assault; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 P.3d 1246, 290 Or. App. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-delgado-orctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack