State v. Steffl

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Steffl

818 P.2d 1297, 109 Or. App. 323, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1588

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedOctober 23, 1991

Docket90-446; CA A66259

StatusPublished

This text of 818 P.2d 1297 (State v. Steffl) 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. Steffl, 818 P.2d 1297, 109 Or. App. 323, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1588 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from separate convictions for delivery, manufacture and possession of cocaine and for possession and manufacture of marijuana. The trial court found him guilty of the charges, after a trial' on stipulated facts, and entered convictions for each offense. As part of the sentences, it ordered the forfeiture of certain of defendant’s real and personal property. Defendant contends that the several convictions should have been merged and that the court had no authority to order forfeiture of his property. We affirm the convictions and sentences but remand for vacation of the order of forfeiture.

Defendant did not object to éntry of separate convictions on the offenses or otherwise raise the merger issue below. We decline to address it. State v. Applegate, 39 Or App 17, 591 P2d 371, rev den 287 Or 301 (1979).

The state concedes, and we agree, that there is no statutory authority for the forfeiture ordered by the trial court.

Convictions affirmed; order of forfeiture vacated.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from separate convictions for delivery, manufacture and possession of cocaine and for possession and manufacture of marijuana. The trial court found him guilty of the charges, after a trial' on stipulated facts, and entered convictions for each offense. As part of the sentences, it ordered the forfeiture of certain of defendant’s real and personal property. Defendant contends that the several convictions should have been merged and that the court had no authority to order forfeiture of his property. We affirm the convictions and sentences but remand for vacation of the order of forfeiture.

Defendant did not object to éntry of separate convictions on the offenses or otherwise raise the merger issue below. We decline to address it. State v. Applegate, 39 Or App 17, 591 P2d 371, rev den 287 Or 301 (1979).

The state concedes, and we agree, that there is no statutory authority for the forfeiture ordered by the trial court.

Convictions affirmed; order of forfeiture vacated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 P.2d 1297, 109 Or. App. 323, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-steffl-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack