Home/Court of Appeals of Oregon/State v. Monaco

State v. Monaco

30 P.3d 1229, 176 Or. App. 349, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1268
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 29, 2001
Docket99CR1534; A108488
StatusPublished

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 P.3d 1229, 176 Or. App. 349, 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 1268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monaco-orctapp-2001.