State v. Ellis

830 P.2d 637, 113 Or. App. 380, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1120
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided June 3, 1992·No. DA 430319-9009; CA A69157·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for menacing, a misdemeanor. ORS 163.190. He contends that the court erred by admitting certain evidence and by imposing a jail sentence as a condition of probation. The court did not err by admitting the challenged testimony; we address only the sentence.

The court imposed two years’ probation to the court and 60 days in jail as a condition of probation. The prosecutor informed the court that, under former ORS 137.540(2) and State v. Wold, 105 Or App 158, 803 P2d 782 (1991), it could not impose a jail term as a condition of probation.1 The court concluded that, if it did not impose formal probation, it could impose a jail term. The state concedes, and we accept the concession, that Wold appliesto informal probation as well as to formal probation and that the sentence was unlawful.

Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Footnotes

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

State v. Ellis, 830 P.2d 637, 113 Or. App. 380, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1120 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

830 P.2d 637 (State v. Ellis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Wold
803 P.2d 782 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)