State v. Keller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Keller

391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 660, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 436

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 5, 2017

Docket1300231M; A158779

StatusPublished

This text of 391 P.3d 1001 (State v. Keller) 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. Keller, 391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 660, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 436 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of third-degree sexual abuse involving a single victim. We write to address only defendant’s second assignment of error and reject defendant’s remaining assignments of error without written discussion.

In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to merge the guilty verdicts on the two counts of third-degree sexual abuse into a single conviction. The court entered a judgment that appears to enter a conviction on both counts while also stating that the counts “are different theories of the same act and transaction and therefore, merge for sentencing per ORS 161.067.” The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in failing to enter a judgment that merged the counts into a single conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error for the reasons stated in State v. Camacho-Alvarez, 225 Or App 215, 216, 200 P3d 613 (2009). See also State v. Newton, 256 Or App 474, 475, 300 P3d 286, rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013) (trial court plainly erred by entering a judgment of conviction that merged counts “for the purpose of imposing sentence” because that language fails to merge the guilty verdicts).

Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for one count of third-degree sexual abuse; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of third-degree sexual abuse involving a single victim. We write to address only defendant’s second assignment of error and reject defendant’s remaining assignments of error without written discussion.

In his second assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to merge the guilty verdicts on the two counts of third-degree sexual abuse into a single conviction. The court entered a judgment that appears to enter a conviction on both counts while also stating that the counts “are different theories of the same act and transaction and therefore, merge for sentencing per ORS 161.067.” The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in failing to enter a judgment that merged the counts into a single conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the plain error for the reasons stated in State v. Camacho-Alvarez, 225 Or App 215, 216, 200 P3d 613 (2009). See also State v. Newton, 256 Or App 474, 475, 300 P3d 286, rev den, 354 Or 148 (2013) (trial court plainly erred by entering a judgment of conviction that merged counts “for the purpose of imposing sentence” because that language fails to merge the guilty verdicts).

Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for one count of third-degree sexual abuse; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 P.3d 1001, 284 Or. App. 660, 2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-keller-orctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack