State v. Monaco

30 P.3d 1229, 176 Or. App. 349, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1268
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 29, 2001·No. 99CR1534; A108488·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for several drug-related offenses. He assigns error only to the trial court’s imposition of 42 months’ probation on count 4, to run consecutively to a prison and post-prison supervision term on a different count. The state concedes that that was error, and we agree. A consecutive probationary sentence is subsumed in a previous sentence that includes post-prison supervision. State v. Dummitt, 115 Or App 487, 839 P2d 246 (1992). We vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing. ORS 138.222(5); State v. Hagan, 140 Or App 454, 916 P2d 317 (1996).

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Monaco, 30 P.3d 1229, 176 Or. App. 349, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

30 P.3d 1229 (State v. Monaco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dummitt
839 P.2d 246 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1992)
State v. Hagan
916 P.2d 317 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1996)