State v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hall

944 P.2d 1000, 149 Or. App. 757, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 10, 1997

DocketC9406-34332; CA A87453

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 944 P.2d 1000 (State v. Hall) 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. Hall, 944 P.2d 1000, 149 Or. App. 757, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HASELTON, J.

In our prior opinion, we reversed defendant’s conviction for robbery in the third degree (Count 2), affirmed his remaining convictions for robbery in the first degree and for felon in possession of a firearm, which arose from separate incidents, and remanded for resentencing. On petition for reconsideration, defendant argues that our disposition was erroneous, because we should simply have modified the judgment, entering a judgment of acquittal on Count 2 without any possibility of resentencing. In particular, defendant contends:

“Because of the disposition of this case there is nothing to resentence defendant on. The disposition of the remaining counts and charges were not disturbed. * * * There is no basis for resentencing.”

We agree.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified; reversed and remanded with instructions to modify judgment, entering a judgment of acquittal on Count 2; otherwise affirmed.

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

HASELTON, J.

In our prior opinion, we reversed defendant’s conviction for robbery in the third degree (Count 2), affirmed his remaining convictions for robbery in the first degree and for felon in possession of a firearm, which arose from separate incidents, and remanded for resentencing. On petition for reconsideration, defendant argues that our disposition was erroneous, because we should simply have modified the judgment, entering a judgment of acquittal on Count 2 without any possibility of resentencing. In particular, defendant contends:

“Because of the disposition of this case there is nothing to resentence defendant on. The disposition of the remaining counts and charges were not disturbed. * * * There is no basis for resentencing.”

We agree.

Petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified; reversed and remanded with instructions to modify judgment, entering a judgment of acquittal on Count 2; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

944 P.2d 1000, 149 Or. App. 757, 1997 Ore. App. LEXIS 1130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-orctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack