State v. Purvis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Purvis

792 P.2d 1252, 102 Or. App. 354, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 602

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 27, 1990

Docket10-89-02138; CA A61398

StatusPublished

This text of 792 P.2d 1252 (State v. Purvis) 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. Purvis, 792 P.2d 1252, 102 Or. App. 354, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 602 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on four counts of theft I, ORS 164.055, two counts of burglary I, ORS 164.225, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. ORS 166.270. He was acquitted of one count of burglary I relating to the Wadman home but was convicted on count 4 of theft of some of the Wadmans’ property, apparently on the theory that he had committed theft by receiving at least some of the property. On appeal, defendant contends that his motion for judgment of acquittal on count 4, charging theft of the Wadmans’ property, should have been granted, because there was no evidence that property that he had received belonging to the Wadmans had a value of more than $200. The only evidence relating to the Wadmans’ property in his possession was that he had a telephone and some jewelry, the combined value of which was $125. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction on count 4 of the indictment and remand for entry of judgment of conviction for theft II, ORS 164.045, and for sentencing on that judgment.

Reversed on count 4 and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for theft II and for sentencing on that judgment; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted on four counts of theft I, ORS 164.055, two counts of burglary I, ORS 164.225, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. ORS 166.270. He was acquitted of one count of burglary I relating to the Wadman home but was convicted on count 4 of theft of some of the Wadmans’ property, apparently on the theory that he had committed theft by receiving at least some of the property. On appeal, defendant contends that his motion for judgment of acquittal on count 4, charging theft of the Wadmans’ property, should have been granted, because there was no evidence that property that he had received belonging to the Wadmans had a value of more than $200. The only evidence relating to the Wadmans’ property in his possession was that he had a telephone and some jewelry, the combined value of which was $125. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction on count 4 of the indictment and remand for entry of judgment of conviction for theft II, ORS 164.045, and for sentencing on that judgment.

Reversed on count 4 and remanded for entry of judgment of conviction for theft II and for sentencing on that judgment; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 P.2d 1252, 102 Or. App. 354, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-purvis-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack