State v. Ward

794 P.2d 833, 102 Or. App. 679, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 869
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 1, 1990·No. 88-CR-0480-MS, 88-CR-0044-MS, 89-CR-0479-MS; CA A60287, A60288, A60289·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This consolidated appeal involves three cases. In two of them, defendant pled guilty or no contest to charges of possession of methamphetamine. ORS 475.992. In the third case, she was found guilty of delivery of methamphetamine. ORS 161.450. Her first assignment of error arises from the latter case, and we find no error.

In all three cases, defendant received probation. Her second assignment of error challenges a condition of probation that she waive her search and seizure rights as ordered by her probation officer. The condition is not modified by any requirement that the probation officer have reasonable grounds to justify a search. The state concedes that, under State v. Schwab, 95 Or App 593, 771 P2d 277 (1989), the condition must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

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

State v. Ward, 794 P.2d 833, 102 Or. App. 679, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 869 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

794 P.2d 833 (State v. Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dunkin
814 P.2d 565 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)