Legal Opinion

State v. Mastne

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 11, 1988No. 86-CR-0083-JC; CA A41135; 86-CR-0061-JC; CA A41296PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, J.

In these cases, consolidated for trial and appeal, defendants appeal their convictions for robbery in the second degree. The only assignment is that the court erred in imposing dangerous offender sanctions. ORS 161.725. We affirm.

A court may impose an increased term of imprisonment under the dangerous offender statute if it finds that, because of the dangerousness of the defendant, an extended period of imprisonment is necessary. However, before a defendant can be treated as “dangerous,” the sentencing must be for either (1) a class A felony or (2) a lesser felony that “seriously endangered…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. HicksCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  2. State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984
  3. State v. FollettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1987

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mastne v. SchiedlerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. City of Helena v. BrisendineMontana Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API