Legal Opinion
State v. Sargent
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided December 11, 1991No. C890196CR; CA A64243PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*196WARREN, P. J.
Defendant was convicted of both delivery of a controlled substance and, as part of the same act and transaction, possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The trial court did not merge the convictions and gave defendant consecutive sentences. We affirm the convictions but vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.
We have previously held that convictions for delivery and possession merge when they are part of the same transaction.1 Those cases are not applicable here, however, because they either involve a state confession of error or do not apply ORS 161.067(1),2…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- State v. BoydCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
- State v. CoriaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
- State v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
- State v. MarshCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- State v. McNamerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Roger Matthew Walters v. Manfred Maass, SuperintendentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Bryan Lynn ShumateCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- State v. SumerlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- Sandoval v. SessionsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- State v. WalravenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.