State v. Stuart

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Stuart

739 P.2d 74, 86 Or. App. 538, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 4100

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 22, 1987

Docket84-2497 & 84-1693; CA A40383 & A40497

StatusPublished

This text of 739 P.2d 74 (State v. Stuart) 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. Stuart, 739 P.2d 74, 86 Or. App. 538, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 4100 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder and assault in the first degree. He contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in failing to “merge” his convictions for purposes of conviction and sentencing. He did not raise the merger issue below. We will not consider it, because his assignment raises no new and different facets of the merger problem, and that any failure to merge would not result in egregious error. See State v. Corpuz, 49 Or App 811, 820-21, 621 P2d 604 (1980); State v. Applegate, 39 Or App 17, 23, 591 P2d 371, rev den 287 Or 301 (1979).

We have considered defendant’s other assignments, that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his statements, in admitting prior bad acts evidence and in imposing a minimum term of imprisonment based on his use of a firearm during the crime, and conclude that they lack merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder and assault in the first degree. He contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in failing to “merge” his convictions for purposes of conviction and sentencing. He did not raise the merger issue below. We will not consider it, because his assignment raises no new and different facets of the merger problem, and that any failure to merge would not result in egregious error. See State v. Corpuz, 49 Or App 811, 820-21, 621 P2d 604 (1980); State v. Applegate, 39 Or App 17, 23, 591 P2d 371, rev den 287 Or 301 (1979).

We have considered defendant’s other assignments, that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress his statements, in admitting prior bad acts evidence and in imposing a minimum term of imprisonment based on his use of a firearm during the crime, and conclude that they lack merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

739 P.2d 74, 86 Or. App. 538, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 4100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stuart-orctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack