State v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hamilton

209 P.3d 851, 229 Or. App. 94, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 747

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 10, 2009

Docket001239970; A135407

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 P.3d 851 (State v. Hamilton) 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. Hamilton, 209 P.3d 851, 229 Or. App. 94, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant assigns error to the failure to merge his robbery convictions under ORS 161.067(2). We determined in State v. Williams, 229 Or App 79, 209 P3d 842 (2009), in similar circumstances, that, under ORS 161.067(2), robbery crimes committed against more than one victim do not merge. Defendant’s pro se supplemental brief challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings, an issue decided against him by Oregon v. Ice, 555 US-, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant assigns error to the failure to merge his robbery convictions under ORS 161.067(2). We determined in State v. Williams, 229 Or App 79, 209 P3d 842 (2009), in similar circumstances, that, under ORS 161.067(2), robbery crimes committed against more than one victim do not merge. Defendant’s pro se supplemental brief challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings, an issue decided against him by Oregon v. Ice, 555 US-, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 P.3d 851, 229 Or. App. 94, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-orctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack