State v. Scott
This text of 920 P.2d 1147 (State v. Scott) 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.
Opinion
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on eight of nine counts and he appeals his convictions on four of those counts: robbery I, ORS 164.415; convicted felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270; and two counts of menacing, ORS 163.190. We affirm his convictions without discussion and remand for entry of an amended judgment correcting the term of post-prison supervision.
Defendant argues, and the state concedes, that the trial court should have imposed a 36-month, rather than a 60-month, term of post-prison supervision for the primary offense, robbery I, a category nine crime, under OAR 253-05-002(2)(c). Although defendant did not object when the trial court imposed the 60-month term, he requests that we exercise our discretion to review the unpreserved claim of error. See ORAP 5.45(2).
The circumstances in this case are identical to those in State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 879 P2d 881 (1994). The error is apparent on the face of the record and, for the reasons discussed in Jones, we exercise our discretion to review it.
Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment imposing 36-month term of post-prison supervision; otherwise affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
920 P.2d 1147, 142 Or. App. 306, 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 1027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scott-orctapp-1996.