Legal Opinion

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 7, 1999No. 96CR0532 CA A95708 and CA A95952 [Control]PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Defendant appeals his convictions on multiple counts of making a false claim for health care payment, contending that four of the counts could not form the basis for convictions because he committed the acts on which they were based before the statute creating the crime went into effect. Defendant also contends that the trial court erred when, for sentencing purposes, it ranked the offense of making a false claim for health care payment at level six on the crime seriousness scale of the sentencing guidelines. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

The jury could have found the following facts.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. State v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. RobertsonOregon Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State v. WimberOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. City of Portland v. DollarhideOregon Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State v. McKenzieOregon Supreme Court · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. WeberCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  2. State v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  3. State v. CramptonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. State v. WigglesworthCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  5. State v. HittCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API