State v. Nelson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Nelson

120 P.3d 538, 201 Or. App. 715, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1245

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 28, 2005

DocketC020883CR; A122103

StatusPublished

This text of 120 P.3d 538 (State v. Nelson) 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. Nelson, 120 P.3d 538, 201 Or. App. 715, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1245 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of assault, ORS 163.185, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On appeal, he assigns error to (1) the sentencing court’s classification of his assault conviction under crime seriousness category 10 of the Oregon sentencing guidelines; and (2) the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge. The state concedes that, because the indictment did not allege the enhancing factor that the victim did not precipitate the attack, the assault conviction should have been classified under category nine rather than category 10 of the sentencing guidelines. We accept the state’s concession and remand for resentencing. State v. Stalder, 117 Or App 289, 291, 844 P2d 225 (1992). We reject defendant’s arguments regarding the motion for a judgment of acquittal without further discussion.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of assault, ORS 163.185, and unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. On appeal, he assigns error to (1) the sentencing court’s classification of his assault conviction under crime seriousness category 10 of the Oregon sentencing guidelines; and (2) the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the assault charge. The state concedes that, because the indictment did not allege the enhancing factor that the victim did not precipitate the attack, the assault conviction should have been classified under category nine rather than category 10 of the sentencing guidelines. We accept the state’s concession and remand for resentencing. State v. Stalder, 117 Or App 289, 291, 844 P2d 225 (1992). We reject defendant’s arguments regarding the motion for a judgment of acquittal without further discussion.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 P.3d 538, 201 Or. App. 715, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 1245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nelson-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack