Legal Opinion

State v. Puckett

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 12, 1992No. 89-CR-0552-ST; CA A66077PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. He contends that his motion to suppress evidence should have been allowed, that the reimbursement ordered for court-appointed attorney fees was too high and that the date of commencement of his probation was wrong. We agree with the trial court that the search was a lawful incident to a lawful arrest. We write only to modify the order for reimbursement of attorney fees.

As a condition of probation, the court required defendant to pay $609 as reimbursement for the court-appointed attorney expenses. The state…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. WestbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. HoffmeisterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
  2. State v. QuackenbushCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API