State v. Shefler

847 P.2d 417, 118 Or. App. 536, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 379
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided March 10, 1993·No. CC90-1349, CC90-1350; CA A69916 (Control), A69917·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

847 P.2d 417 (State v. Shefler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Carr
863 P.2d 1316 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
State v. Thorfinnson
853 P.2d 1368 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
State v. Vail
848 P.2d 148 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1993)
Allen v. Hartford Fire Insurance
359 P.2d 829 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1961)