Legal Opinion

State v. Burlew

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 22, 1989No. 87-853A-C-2; CA A47433PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals her convictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1); ORS 161.450(1), delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1), and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). The state concedes that the trial court erred in entering separate convictions and sentences. We accept the concession. ORS 161.485(3); State v. McNamer, 80 Or App 418, 421, 722 P2d 51 (1986).

The state argues, nonetheless, that we should not reach the merger question, because defendant failed to raise it below. Alleged errors will not be addressed on appeal unless…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. McNamerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. SargentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. State v. MendosaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  3. State v. HeneghanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. State v. HeneghanCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  5. State v. SargentCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API