State v. Hernandez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hernandez

823 P.2d 1042, 111 Or. App. 400, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 330

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 12, 1992

DocketC9010-35924; CA A69194

StatusPublished

This text of 823 P.2d 1042 (State v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 823 P.2d 1042, 111 Or. App. 400, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 330 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The first count charged that he committed the crime as part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network, but the second count did not. The court overruled defendant’s demurrer and alternative motion to strike, which alleged that the scheme or network language was unconstitutionally vague. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). In a trial to the court on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted only on count 2 of the indictment.

Defendant’s only assignment of error is based on our decision in Moeller. Because he was convicted only on count 2, which did not allege participation in a scheme or network, the assignment of error is moot.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The first count charged that he committed the crime as part of a drug cultivation, manufacture or delivery scheme or network, but the second count did not. The court overruled defendant’s demurrer and alternative motion to strike, which alleged that the scheme or network language was unconstitutionally vague. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). In a trial to the court on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted only on count 2 of the indictment.

Defendant’s only assignment of error is based on our decision in Moeller. Because he was convicted only on count 2, which did not allege participation in a scheme or network, the assignment of error is moot.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 P.2d 1042, 111 Or. App. 400, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hernandez-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack