State v. Moyer

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Moyer

840 P.2d 112, 116 Or. App. 231, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2012

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided November 4, 1992·No. 90040607, 90040608; CA A68412, A68413·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals convictions on eight counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. For each count, the indictment alleged that the crime occurred as part of a drug delivery scheme or network. Defendant was found guilty of the charges, and the jury returned a special verdict that each offense was committed as part of a scheme or network. Defendant did not demur, but raised an issue that challenged the sentences on the basis of the “scheme or network” findings.

The state concedes that the court erred in sentencing. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). We accept the state’s concession.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals convictions on eight counts of delivery of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. For each count, the indictment alleged that the crime occurred as part of a drug delivery scheme or network. Defendant was found guilty of the charges, and the jury returned a special verdict that each offense was committed as part of a scheme or network. Defendant did not demur, but raised an issue that challenged the sentences on the basis of the “scheme or network” findings.

The state concedes that the court erred in sentencing. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). We accept the state’s concession.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Moyer, 840 P.2d 112, 116 Or. App. 231, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2012 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

840 P.2d 112 (State v. Moyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related