Legal Opinion

State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 14, 1986No. C85-02-30683; CA A37156Published

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the first degree. The state confesses that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years probation to run consecutively to a sentence imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269. We agree. See State v. Barnes, 58 Or App 516, 518, 648 P2d 1306 (1982). It appears that the imposition of the consecutive sentence may have been due to a scrivener’s error. We modify the judgment to provide that the probation in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in the other cases.

Defendant’s other assignment of error is without merit, and we…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API