State v. Rhamy

431 P.3d 103, 294 Or. App. 784
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided November 7, 2018·No. A165295; A165294 (Control)·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*785Defendant challenges a probation condition, imposed in each of these consolidated cases, that prohibits him from applying for or using a registry identification card pursuant to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA). He argues that, under ORS 137.542(2), the conditions of supervision for an OMMA registry cardholder "must be imposed in the same manner as the conditions of supervision of a person sentenced to probation related to prescription drugs," and that the court's unqualified prohibition on his participation in the OMMA-in the absence of any findings to justify that special condition-violates that statute. The state concedes that the trial court erred in imposing the condition and that, because it appeared for the first time in the judgments, ordinary preservation requirements are excused. We agree with the state in both respects, and we remand each case for resentencing.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Rhamy, 431 P.3d 103, 294 Or. App. 784 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

431 P.3d 103 (State v. Rhamy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Lynn
2023 Ohio 4429 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Steltz v. Cain
Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023
People of Michigan v. Michael Eugene Thue
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2021
State v. McLaughlin
476 P.3d 987 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2020)
State v. Miller
450 P.3d 578 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)
State v. Kilgore
435 P.3d 817 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2019)