State v. Renner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Renner

142 P.3d 1078, 207 Or. App. 528, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1235

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 30, 2006

DocketC033105CR; A127007

StatusPublished

This text of 142 P.3d 1078 (State v. Renner) 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. Renner, 142 P.3d 1078, 207 Or. App. 528, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1235 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992,¹ after entry of a guilty plea, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,100 at sentencing. On appeal, defendant raises several constitutional challenges to his sentence. We reject those challenges for the reasons set forth in State v. Clark, 205 Or App 338, 134 P3d 1074 (2006), and State v. Fuerte-Coria, 196 Or App 170, 100 P3d 773 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 16 (2005). Defendant further asserts that the trial court erred in imposing $1,100 of the restitution amount because the damages in question did not result from the crime of conviction. The state concedes that imposition of $1,100 of the restitution was erroneous. We agree and accept the state’s concession. State v. Seggerman, 167 Or App 140, 145, 3 P3d 168 (2000).

Sentence 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 delivery of a controlled substance, former ORS 475.992,¹ after entry of a guilty plea, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $2,100 at sentencing. On appeal, defendant raises several constitutional challenges to his sentence. We reject those challenges for the reasons set forth in State v. Clark, 205 Or App 338, 134 P3d 1074 (2006), and State v. Fuerte-Coria, 196 Or App 170, 100 P3d 773 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 16 (2005). Defendant further asserts that the trial court erred in imposing $1,100 of the restitution amount because the damages in question did not result from the crime of conviction. The state concedes that imposition of $1,100 of the restitution was erroneous. We agree and accept the state’s concession. State v. Seggerman, 167 Or App 140, 145, 3 P3d 168 (2000).

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 P.3d 1078, 207 Or. App. 528, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-renner-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack