State v. Sanchez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Sanchez

824 P.2d 1191, 111 Or. App. 116, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 235

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 22, 1992

Docket90-04-33301; CA A66117

StatusPublished

This text of 824 P.2d 1191 (State v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 824 P.2d 1191, 111 Or. App. 116, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 235 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance as part of a scheme or network. There is no record that he filed a demurrer. He pled guilty as part of an agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that defendant would be sentenced under gridblock 8G and agreed not to prosecute defendant on a second felony drug offense. Defendant’s assignment of error is that the court erred in sentencing him to 22 months imprisonment, which is within the presumptive range for gridblock 8G. He contends that, because after he was sentenced we held that the “scheme or network” language violated the Oregon constitution, his sentence must be vacated. See State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 201 (1991).

There is no authority for us to review the sentence here. ORS 138.222(2)(d); State v. Rathbone I, 110 Or App 414, 823 P2d 430 (1991).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance as part of a scheme or network. There is no record that he filed a demurrer. He pled guilty as part of an agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that defendant would be sentenced under gridblock 8G and agreed not to prosecute defendant on a second felony drug offense. Defendant’s assignment of error is that the court erred in sentencing him to 22 months imprisonment, which is within the presumptive range for gridblock 8G. He contends that, because after he was sentenced we held that the “scheme or network” language violated the Oregon constitution, his sentence must be vacated. See State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 201 (1991).

There is no authority for us to review the sentence here. ORS 138.222(2)(d); State v. Rathbone I, 110 Or App 414, 823 P2d 430 (1991).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

824 P.2d 1191, 111 Or. App. 116, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sanchez-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack