State v. Watts

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Watts

587 P.2d 519, 37 Or. App. 499, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2243

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 11, 1978

DocketNo. C 78-01-01303, CA 11226

StatusPublished

This text of 587 P.2d 519 (State v. Watts) 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. Watts, 587 P.2d 519, 37 Or. App. 499, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2243 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was separately convicted and sentenced for the offenses of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. Both offenses were based on the same act — the use of a firearm in attempting to commit theft. Pursuant to State v. Steele, 33 Or App 491, 577 P2d 524 (1978), the trial court should have entered only one conviction and sentence, for robbery.

The state argues that since the defendant did not raise the issue below, we should not consider it on appeal, citing several cases of the Oregon Supreme Court and this court in which we have so determined.¹ The distinction is that in those cases the rule was established. Here the dispositive opinion. State v. Steele, supra, had not been published at the time the trial court entered its judgment.

The judgment order is affirmed except for the conviction and sentence for assault, which is reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was separately convicted and sentenced for the offenses of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree. Both offenses were based on the same act — the use of a firearm in attempting to commit theft. Pursuant to State v. Steele, 33 Or App 491, 577 P2d 524 (1978), the trial court should have entered only one conviction and sentence, for robbery.

The state argues that since the defendant did not raise the issue below, we should not consider it on appeal, citing several cases of the Oregon Supreme Court and this court in which we have so determined.¹ The distinction is that in those cases the rule was established. Here the dispositive opinion. State v. Steele, supra, had not been published at the time the trial court entered its judgment.

The judgment order is affirmed except for the conviction and sentence for assault, which is reversed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 P.2d 519, 37 Or. App. 499, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watts-orctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack