State v. Waldrip

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Waldrip

842 P.2d 467, 117 Or. App. 249, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2411

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 16, 1992·No. 91NB-1519, 91NB-1696, 91CR-2515; CA A73229, A73230, A73231·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants in 3 separate cases. In each, the court imposed a jail term, suspended execution of a portion of that sentence and placed defendant on probation. The state concedes that the court did not have the authority at the same time to impose and order executed a sentence of incarceration and to place defendant on probation. State v. McMellon, 110 Or App 441, 823 P2d 996 (1992); State v. Vasby, 101 Or App 1, 788 P2d 1024 (1990). We accept the concession.

Defendant’s other assignments of error are moot.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants in 3 separate cases. In each, the court imposed a jail term, suspended execution of a portion of that sentence and placed defendant on probation. The state concedes that the court did not have the authority at the same time to impose and order executed a sentence of incarceration and to place defendant on probation. State v. McMellon, 110 Or App 441, 823 P2d 996 (1992); State v. Vasby, 101 Or App 1, 788 P2d 1024 (1990). We accept the concession.

Defendant’s other assignments of error are moot.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

State v. Waldrip, 842 P.2d 467, 117 Or. App. 249, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2411 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

842 P.2d 467 (State v. Waldrip) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related