State v. Heneghan
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Per curiam
Defendant petitions for review of our decision that affirmed, without opinion, his convictions for manufacture of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1), and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). 106 Or App 774, 810 P2d 882 (1991). We treat the petition as one for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it and adhere to our former decision.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it refused to enter only a single conviction and sentence, because both charges arose out of the same act or transaction. He contends:
“Defendant was alleged to have manufactured and possessed…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. SumerlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- State v. SargentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
- State v. GuzmanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- State v. BurrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
- State v. Wallock/HaraCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.