State v. Shefler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Shefler

847 P.2d 417, 118 Or. App. 536, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 379

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 10, 1993

DocketCC90-1349, CC90-1350; CA A69916 (Control), A69917

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 847 P.2d 417 (State v. Shefler) 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. Shefler, 847 P.2d 417, 118 Or. App. 536, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 379 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(l)(a), and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4)(a). He appeals, making three assignments of error. We address only the third assignment.

Defendant contends that, the trial court erred by delegating its sentencing authority to a probation officer. In addition to 60 days in jail time imposed on each conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, the court ordered, as a special condition of probation, that “defendant shall receive an additional 60 custody units to be utilized at the discretion of his probation officer”1 (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant argues that nothing in the sentencing guidelines authorizes the court to make such a delegation. The state agrees. We accept the state’s concession. OAR 235-05-012(3)(b); cf. State v. Stephens, 47 Or App 305, 312, 614 P2d 1180 (1980).

The condition of probation that 60 custody units are to be utilized at the discretion of a probation officer vacated and 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 two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(l)(a), and two counts of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4)(a). He appeals, making three assignments of error. We address only the third assignment.

Defendant contends that, the trial court erred by delegating its sentencing authority to a probation officer. In addition to 60 days in jail time imposed on each conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, the court ordered, as a special condition of probation, that “defendant shall receive an additional 60 custody units to be utilized at the discretion of his probation officer”1 (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant argues that nothing in the sentencing guidelines authorizes the court to make such a delegation. The state agrees. We accept the state’s concession. OAR 235-05-012(3)(b); cf. State v. Stephens, 47 Or App 305, 312, 614 P2d 1180 (1980).

The condition of probation that 60 custody units are to be utilized at the discretion of a probation officer vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 P.2d 417, 118 Or. App. 536, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shefler-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack