State v. Meyers

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Meyers

738 P.2d 211, 86 Or. App. 1, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3956

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 17, 1987

Docket86-04-3870-C, 86-04-3871-C; CA A41275, A41276

StatusPublished

This text of 738 P.2d 211 (State v. Meyers) 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. Meyers, 738 P.2d 211, 86 Or. App. 1, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3956 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The robbery indictment charged that defendant took the victim’s vehicle as part of the robbery. The court imposed separate sentences on each charge to run concurrently.

Defendant contends and the state agrees that the elements of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle charge were part of the robbery charge and that the court should have entered only a conviction for robbery and a sentence on that charge. We agree.

Defendant was ordered to pay $3,500 to the victim as restitution. He contends that the court did not conduct an adequate hearing to determine the amounts of damage suffered by the victim. There was a hearing conducted after defendant objected to the amounts. He also agreed, through counsel, with the procedure utilized by the court to verify the victim’s losses. There was no error in the judgment for restitution.

Conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle reversed; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The robbery indictment charged that defendant took the victim’s vehicle as part of the robbery. The court imposed separate sentences on each charge to run concurrently.

Defendant contends and the state agrees that the elements of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle charge were part of the robbery charge and that the court should have entered only a conviction for robbery and a sentence on that charge. We agree.

Defendant was ordered to pay $3,500 to the victim as restitution. He contends that the court did not conduct an adequate hearing to determine the amounts of damage suffered by the victim. There was a hearing conducted after defendant objected to the amounts. He also agreed, through counsel, with the procedure utilized by the court to verify the victim’s losses. There was no error in the judgment for restitution.

Conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle reversed; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 P.2d 211, 86 Or. App. 1, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-meyers-orctapp-1987.