State v. Mastrilli
This text of 661 P.2d 124 (State v. Mastrilli) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Oregon, Respondent,
v.
Terry Joseph MASTRILLI, Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Guy B. Greco, Newport, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Greco & Escobar, Newport.
Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before GILLETTE, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of burglary. He assigns six errors on appeal. We find merit only in the last, which concerns the sentence imposed. The trial judge directed that, inter alia, the sentence be served consecutively "* * * to any time the defendant is [hereafter] ordered to serve as a result of parole violation in Montana if the defendant is returned to Montana before this sentence is served." Imposing a sentence consecutive to an as yet unexecuted sentence is impermissible. See State v. DeChenne, 39 Or. App. 901, 594 P.2d 831 (1979); State v. Ward, 59 Or. App. 42, 650 P.2d 164 (1982).
The state agrees that, if the challenged phrase is deemed impermissible, it may be deleted without remanding the case for resentencing. See Or. Const., Art. VII (Amended), § 3. It is so ordered.
Judgment of conviction affirmed. Sentence modified by deleting requirement that defendant serve the term imposed consecutively to any sentence which may be imposed for parole violation in Montana.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
661 P.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mastrilli-orctapp-1983.