State v. Towle

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Towle

673 P.2d 577, 66 Or. App. 229, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4046

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 21, 1983

Docket81-0900, 81-0901; CA A28375, A28376

StatusPublished

This text of 673 P.2d 577 (State v. Towle) 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. Towle, 673 P.2d 577, 66 Or. App. 229, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4046 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BUTTLER, P. J.

In 1981, defendant was charged by two separate indictments with the crimes of burglary in the first degree in Linn County, to each of which he pled guilty. He was sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment, with execution suspended, and was placed on probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, his probation was revoked because he was convicted of another burglary in Lane County, for which he was sentenced to five years. At that time, the two five-year sentences in Linn County were ordered executed, to run consecutively to the five-year term of imprisonment imposed in Lane County. Defendant appeals from the Linn County sentences, contending that the court exceeded its authority in ordering that the two five-year sentences run consecutively to the five-year sentence in Lane County.

The state concedes correctly that State v. Stevens, 253 Or 563, 456 P2d 494 (1969), limited the Linn County court to execution of the previous sentencing order and precludes that court from amending it to provide that the two five-year sentences run consecutively to the Lane County sentence. Accordingly, the sentencing order is modified to delete the portion that orders the two five-year sentences to run consecutive to the Lane County sentence. As in Stevens, that language is surplusage and is separable.

Sentencing order modified to delete portion which orders the two five-year sentences to run consecutive to the Lane County sentence.

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

BUTTLER, P. J.

In 1981, defendant was charged by two separate indictments with the crimes of burglary in the first degree in Linn County, to each of which he pled guilty. He was sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment, with execution suspended, and was placed on probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, his probation was revoked because he was convicted of another burglary in Lane County, for which he was sentenced to five years. At that time, the two five-year sentences in Linn County were ordered executed, to run consecutively to the five-year term of imprisonment imposed in Lane County. Defendant appeals from the Linn County sentences, contending that the court exceeded its authority in ordering that the two five-year sentences run consecutively to the five-year sentence in Lane County.

The state concedes correctly that State v. Stevens, 253 Or 563, 456 P2d 494 (1969), limited the Linn County court to execution of the previous sentencing order and precludes that court from amending it to provide that the two five-year sentences run consecutively to the Lane County sentence. Accordingly, the sentencing order is modified to delete the portion that orders the two five-year sentences to run consecutive to the Lane County sentence. As in Stevens, that language is surplusage and is separable.

Sentencing order modified to delete portion which orders the two five-year sentences to run consecutive to the Lane County sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 P.2d 577, 66 Or. App. 229, 1983 Ore. App. LEXIS 4046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-towle-orctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack