State v. Ray

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ray

598 P.2d 1293, 41 Or. App. 763, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3172

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 27, 1979

Docket37098, CA 13006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 598 P.2d 1293 (State v. Ray) 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. Ray, 598 P.2d 1293, 41 Or. App. 763, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 3172 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*765 GILLETTE, J.

Defendant pled guilty in July, 1976, to a charge of burglary in the second degree. He was placed on three years’ probation. In December, 1978, defendant’s probation was revoked after a show cause hearing. At the hearing, the state offered evidence of other, later criminal activity by defendant. The evidence had been seized pursuant to a warrant which the state concedes was invalid. Defendant’s motion to suppress that evidence was denied, and he appeals.

Since defendant filed his appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court has decided State v Nettles, 37 Or 511, 588 P2d 688 (1979). The court there held that, at least absent special circumstances not present in that case or this one, evidence seized in violation of a probationer’s constitutional rights could nonetheless be used in probation revocation proceedings. Nettles is in point here. There was no error.

Defendant’s second assignment relates to the trial court’s failure to order a presentence investigation prior to sentencing. The state concedes error. See State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

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