State v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Dodson

825 P.2d 662

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 26, 1992

DocketC 90-04-32061 CA A67852

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 825 P.2d 662 (State v. Dodson) 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. Dodson, 825 P.2d 662 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

825 P.2d 662 (1992) 111 Or.App. 643

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Lincoln Edward DODSON, Appellant.

C 90-04-32061; CA A67852.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted January 31, 1992. Decided February 26, 1992.

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause, for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Janet A. Klapstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause, for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and DEITS and DURHAM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.450, solicitation to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.435, and attempted murder. ORS 161.405; ORS 163.115.

Defendant first argues that his demurrer should have been allowed, because the indictment does not adequately identify his co-conspirators. The indictment was sufficient.

The court imposed consecutive sentences on the convictions on the conspiracy and solicitation counts. The state concedes that the consecutive sentences are unlawful, *663 because those convictions merge under ORS 161.485. We agree.

Defendant also argues that the court erred in purporting to impose conditions of confinement and post-prison supervision. The state agrees that the court can only recommend conditions. State v. Potter, 108 Or. App. 480, 816 P.2d 661 (1991). We accept that concession.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

825 P.2d 662 (1992) 111 Or.App. 643

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Lincoln Edward DODSON, Appellant.

C 90-04-32061; CA A67852.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted January 31, 1992. Decided February 26, 1992.

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause, for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Janet A. Klapstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause, for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and DEITS and DURHAM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.450, solicitation to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.435, and attempted murder. ORS 161.405; ORS 163.115.

Defendant first argues that his demurrer should have been allowed, because the indictment does not adequately identify his co-conspirators. The indictment was sufficient.

The court imposed consecutive sentences on the convictions on the conspiracy and solicitation counts. The state concedes that the consecutive sentences are unlawful, *663 because those convictions merge under ORS 161.485. We agree.

Defendant also argues that the court erred in purporting to impose conditions of confinement and post-prison supervision. The state agrees that the court can only recommend conditions. State v. Potter, 108 Or. App. 480, 816 P.2d 661 (1991). We accept that concession.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

825 P.2d 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dodson-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Lincoln Edward DODSON, Appellant.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Lincoln Edward DODSON, Appellant.