State v. Swingle

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Swingle

835 P.2d 158, 114 Or. App. 418, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1489

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 22, 1992

Docket90-1073; CA A67149

StatusPublished

This text of 835 P.2d 158 (State v. Swingle) 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. Swingle, 835 P.2d 158, 114 Or. App. 418, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1489 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In a stipulated facts trial, defendant was found guilty of felony driving while suspended. ORS 811.175. He argues that, because his DWS conviction was based on a finding that he was driving in violation of his habitual traffic offender prohibition, he should have been sentenced according to the grid block¹ for a habitual traffic offender. Former ORS 811.185.² He contends that, because the DWS statute proscribes acts that are also covered by the habitual offender statute, violations of DWS should be punished as habitual offender violations.

Defendant makes no constitutional argument that the statutes provide different punishments for the same acts. See State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 281 P2d 698 (1955). He admits that the statutes are distinguishable but cites no authority as to why the legislature could not choose to punish one offense more severely than the other. In short, he provides no reason why he should be sentenced for a crime other than the one for which he was found guilty. We reject his position.

Defendant also argues that the court erred in requiring him to serve his sentence consecutively to one imposed for a parole violation. It did not. ORS 137.123 does not require findings to support consecutive terms for offenses that do not arise out of an uninterrupted course of conduct.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In a stipulated facts trial, defendant was found guilty of felony driving while suspended. ORS 811.175. He argues that, because his DWS conviction was based on a finding that he was driving in violation of his habitual traffic offender prohibition, he should have been sentenced according to the grid block¹ for a habitual traffic offender. Former ORS 811.185.² He contends that, because the DWS statute proscribes acts that are also covered by the habitual offender statute, violations of DWS should be punished as habitual offender violations.

Defendant makes no constitutional argument that the statutes provide different punishments for the same acts. See State v. Pirkey, 203 Or 697, 281 P2d 698 (1955). He admits that the statutes are distinguishable but cites no authority as to why the legislature could not choose to punish one offense more severely than the other. In short, he provides no reason why he should be sentenced for a crime other than the one for which he was found guilty. We reject his position.

Defendant also argues that the court erred in requiring him to serve his sentence consecutively to one imposed for a parole violation. It did not. ORS 137.123 does not require findings to support consecutive terms for offenses that do not arise out of an uninterrupted course of conduct.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

835 P.2d 158, 114 Or. App. 418, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 1489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-swingle-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack