Legal Opinion

State v. Nunn

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 4, 1991No. CM89-0708; CA A64759PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRiggs, J.

Defendant appeals his convictions of forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.007; ORS 165.013, and fraudulent use of a credit card. ORS 165.055. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to merge the convictions. He argues that fraudulent use of a credit card is necessarily a lesser included offense of forgery in the first degree, because one cannot commit the former without committing the latter. We disagree and affirm.

Defendant’s two convictions stemmed from the same act. At sentencing, defendant moved that the convictions be merged. The trial court concluded that the statutes…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. State v. MezickCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. NoeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. State v. BurrisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. State v. MedleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API