State v. Osiris

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Osiris

864 P.2d 878, 125 Or. App. 76, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2019

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 8, 1993

Docket91-05-32511; CA A73608

StatusPublished

This text of 864 P.2d 878 (State v. Osiris) 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. Osiris, 864 P.2d 878, 125 Or. App. 76, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2019 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

DEITS, P. J.

Defendant appeals his convictions for murder, ORS 163.115(l)(a), felonymurder, ORS 163.115(l)(b), first degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270. He also assigns error to the sentence imposed on his murder convictions. We affirm the convictions without discussion and address only the sentencing issue.

The trial court merged for sentencing defendant’s convictions for murder and felony murder and imposed a life sentence under subsection (a) of ORS 163.115(3), a 10-year minimum sentence under subsection (b) and a 10-year minimum sentence under subsection (c). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life imprisonment and to minimum sentences under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c), because those sentences are inconsistent with the sentencing guidelines.

In State v. Morgan, 316 Or 553, 558, 856 P2d 612 (1993), the Supreme Court held that ORS 163.135(3)(b) and (c) “were not impliedly repealed by the enactment of the sentencing guidelines in 1989,” and that mandatory minimums imposed under those sections were permissible. Accordingly, the two minimum sentences imposed under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c) were proper. The Supreme Court also held in Morgan that because a life sentence was not a determinate sentence, it was superseded by the guidelines and could not be imposed in that case.¹ The court further held in Morgan, however, that a sentencing court retained authority to impose post-prison supervision for life, subject to the authority of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to impose a shorter term of post-prison supervision under OAR 253-05-004(1). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

DEITS, P. J.

Defendant appeals his convictions for murder, ORS 163.115(l)(a), felonymurder, ORS 163.115(l)(b), first degree robbery, ORS 164.415, and felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270. He also assigns error to the sentence imposed on his murder convictions. We affirm the convictions without discussion and address only the sentencing issue.

The trial court merged for sentencing defendant’s convictions for murder and felony murder and imposed a life sentence under subsection (a) of ORS 163.115(3), a 10-year minimum sentence under subsection (b) and a 10-year minimum sentence under subsection (c). Defendant argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to life imprisonment and to minimum sentences under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c), because those sentences are inconsistent with the sentencing guidelines.

In State v. Morgan, 316 Or 553, 558, 856 P2d 612 (1993), the Supreme Court held that ORS 163.135(3)(b) and (c) “were not impliedly repealed by the enactment of the sentencing guidelines in 1989,” and that mandatory minimums imposed under those sections were permissible. Accordingly, the two minimum sentences imposed under ORS 163.115(3)(b) and (c) were proper. The Supreme Court also held in Morgan that because a life sentence was not a determinate sentence, it was superseded by the guidelines and could not be imposed in that case.¹ The court further held in Morgan, however, that a sentencing court retained authority to impose post-prison supervision for life, subject to the authority of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision to impose a shorter term of post-prison supervision under OAR 253-05-004(1). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

864 P.2d 878, 125 Or. App. 76, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 2019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-osiris-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack