Legal Opinion
State v. Carmickle
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided September 30, 1988No. DC B68-501, CA A41918, SC S34599PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*3CAMPBELL, J.
We accepted review in this case to determine if a convicted criminal defendant can elect to refuse probation and demand that sentence be imposed. We hold that such a defendant may make such an election. Because of the result we do not reach secondary issues which the defendant raised in his petition for review.
On April 25,1986, the defendant was arrested in this case on the charge of INITIATING A FALSE REPORT to the Eugene Police Department about a stolen car. On May 1, 1986, he was released on his own recognizance to report to his parole officer on a previous conviction. On July…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Ex Parte United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Schacht v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- People v. OssloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
- State v. MontgomeryArizona Supreme Court · 1977
- Franklin v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1964
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- State v. CloutierOregon Supreme Court · 2011
- Holcomb v. SunderlandOregon Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. DonovanOregon Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Yates v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1990
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.