Legal Opinion

State v. LeDonne

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 22, 1992No. 90CR-1023; CA A66091PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to manufacture of a controlled substance as part of a scheme or network. He appeals from the sentence imposed under category 8 of the crime seriousness peale, arguing that the court erred because, after he was sentenced, the “scheme or network” language was held to violate Article I, sections 20 and 21, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 201 (1991). He contends that the sentence may be reviewed under ORS 138.222(4)(b), which allows review of a claim that the sentencing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. MoellerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. State v. MoellerOregon Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. RATHBONE IIICourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. State v. RATHBONE IIICourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. Gabler v. Embassy Suites HotelCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1991

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. LeDonneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. State v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  3. State v. SebastianCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API