State v. Fries

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Fries

63 P.3d 1269, 186 Or. App. 564, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 261

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 19, 2003

Docket01-01-30663; A114950

StatusPublished

This text of 63 P.3d 1269 (State v. Fries) 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. Fries, 63 P.3d 1269, 186 Or. App. 564, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 261 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In accordance with a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.999(1), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(5). He appeals the portion of the sentence that ordered the forfeiture of 16 firearms that the police found during a search of his residence. The state concedes that the record is insufficient to support the forfeiture, and we agree. Former ORS 166.280(1) (1999), repealed by Or Laws 2001, ch 666, § 56; State v. Berg, 122 Or App 573, 857 P2d 909 (1993).

As part of the plea agreement defendant agreed that, if the trial court did not order forfeiture of the firearms, he would pay a $2,500 fine. The state suggests that we should remand the case so that the court may consider whether to modify the sentence in accordance with that agreement. Again, we agree.

Order forfeiting firearms vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In accordance with a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.999(1), and one count of possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(5). He appeals the portion of the sentence that ordered the forfeiture of 16 firearms that the police found during a search of his residence. The state concedes that the record is insufficient to support the forfeiture, and we agree. Former ORS 166.280(1) (1999), repealed by Or Laws 2001, ch 666, § 56; State v. Berg, 122 Or App 573, 857 P2d 909 (1993).

As part of the plea agreement defendant agreed that, if the trial court did not order forfeiture of the firearms, he would pay a $2,500 fine. The state suggests that we should remand the case so that the court may consider whether to modify the sentence in accordance with that agreement. Again, we agree.

Order forfeiting firearms vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 P.3d 1269, 186 Or. App. 564, 2003 Ore. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fries-orctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack