State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hill

719 P.2d 67, 79 Or. App. 373, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2790

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 14, 1986

DocketC85-02-30683; CA A37156

StatusPublished

This text of 719 P.2d 67 (State v. Hill) 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. Hill, 719 P.2d 67, 79 Or. App. 373, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2790 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the first degree. The state confesses that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years probation to run consecutively to a sentence imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269. We agree. See State v. Barnes, 58 Or App 516, 518, 648 P2d 1306 (1982). It appears that the imposition of the consecutive sentence may have been due to a scrivener’s error. We modify the judgment to provide that the probation in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in the other cases.

Defendant’s other assignment of error is without merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment as modified.

Judgment modified to provide that sentence shall run concurrently with that imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269; affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the first degree. The state confesses that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years probation to run consecutively to a sentence imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269. We agree. See State v. Barnes, 58 Or App 516, 518, 648 P2d 1306 (1982). It appears that the imposition of the consecutive sentence may have been due to a scrivener’s error. We modify the judgment to provide that the probation in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in the other cases.

Defendant’s other assignment of error is without merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment as modified.

Judgment modified to provide that sentence shall run concurrently with that imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269; affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 P.2d 67, 79 Or. App. 373, 1986 Ore. App. LEXIS 2790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hill-orctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack