Legal Opinion

State v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 10, 2009No. 001239970; A135407PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Defendant assigns error to the failure to merge his robbery convictions under ORS 161.067(2). We determined in State v. Williams, 229 Or App 79, 209 P3d 842 (2009), in similar circumstances, that, under ORS 161.067(2), robbery crimes committed against more than one victim do not merge. Defendant’s pro se supplemental brief challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences without jury findings, an issue decided against him by Oregon v. Ice, 555 US-, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009).

Affirmed.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Oregon v. IceSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009