State v. Hoeper
828 P.2d 1058, 112 Or. App. 640, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 774
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided April 22, 1992·No. 10-90-04655, 10-90-05780; CA A66249 (Control), A66250·Published
Opinion
Defendant, relying on State v. Wold, 105 Or App 158, 160-61, 803 P2d 782 (1991), seeks vacation of the 180-day jail term that he received as a condition of probation after he pled guilty to DUII.1 ORS 813.010. He contends that the sentence exceeds the maximum allowable by law. ORS 138.050; ORS 138.053. The sentence is proper. State v. Oary, 109 Or App 580, 583, 820 P2d 857 (1991), mod 112 Or App 296, 829 P2d 90 (1992).
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Hoeper, 828 P.2d 1058, 112 Or. App. 640, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 774 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
828 P.2d 1058 (State v. Hoeper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Wold
803 P.2d 782 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Oary
820 P.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Oary
829 P.2d 90 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)