State v. Hamilton
209 P.3d 851, 229 Or. App. 94, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 747
Opinion
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
State v. Hamilton, 209 P.3d 851, 229 Or. App. 94, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 747 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
209 P.3d 851 (State v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Hamilton
209 P.3d 851 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2009)