State v. Youngs

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Youngs

301 P.3d 976, 256 Or. App. 755, 2013 WL 2285383, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 555

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 22, 2013

DocketC120585CR; A151218

StatusPublished

This text of 301 P.3d 976 (State v. Youngs) 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. Youngs, 301 P.3d 976, 256 Or. App. 755, 2013 WL 2285383, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 555 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted, based on a guilty plea, of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. ORS 475.894. The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 months’ formal probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s cell phone, which was seized during the investigation of the crime. On appeal, defendant contends — and the state concedes — that the court lacked authority to order forfeiture as a condition of probation. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See ORS 161.045(4) (“No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”); State v. Olson, 246 Or App 785, 786, 268 P3d 679 (2011), rev den, 352 Or 265 (2012) (finding no statute authorizing forfeiture as a condition of probation). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted, based on a guilty plea, of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. ORS 475.894. The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 months’ formal probation and, as a condition of probation, ordered the forfeiture of defendant’s cell phone, which was seized during the investigation of the crime. On appeal, defendant contends — and the state concedes — that the court lacked authority to order forfeiture as a condition of probation. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See ORS 161.045(4) (“No conviction of a person for an offense works a forfeiture of the property of the person, except in cases where a forfeiture is expressly provided by law.”); State v. Olson, 246 Or App 785, 786, 268 P3d 679 (2011), rev den, 352 Or 265 (2012) (finding no statute authorizing forfeiture as a condition of probation). Accordingly, we remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 P.3d 976, 256 Or. App. 755, 2013 WL 2285383, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-youngs-orctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack