State v. Wenzell

432 P.3d 393, 295 Or. App. 574
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Wenzell. Read the opinion of the Court — 300 Or. App. 216
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 3, 2019·No. A166174·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*394*575Defendant, who was convicted of possession of methamphetamine (Count 1), ORS 475.894, and supplying contraband (Count 2), ORS 162.185,1 appeals. On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction for supplying contraband, asserting that the trial court plainly erred in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge because there was no evidence in the record that defendant performed a voluntary act directed toward introducing contraband into a correctional facility.2 See State v. Ortiz-Valdez , 190 Or. App. 511, 514-15, 79 P.3d 371 (2003) (to be convicted of supplying contraband, a defendant must perform a voluntary act directed toward introducing contraband to a correctional facility). The state concedes that the trial court plainly erred when it failed to enter a judgment of acquittal on the supplying contraband charge, and that the conviction on that count should be reversed. We agree, accept the state's concession, and, for the reasons set forth in State v. Lusk , 267 Or. App. 208, 213-16, 340 P.3d 670 (2014), exercise our discretion to correct the error.

Conviction on Count 2 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

State v. Wenzell, 432 P.3d 393, 295 Or. App. 574 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

432 P.3d 393 (State v. Wenzell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ortiz-Valdez
79 P.3d 371 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2003)
State v. Lusk
340 P.3d 670 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2014)