Legal Opinion

State v. Freeland

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 30, 1992No. C91-04-31704; CA A71496Published

1Per curiam

Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) and two counts of forgery. ORS 164.135; ORS 165.013. The sentencing court merged the forgery convictions and imposed dispositional departure sentences on the UUV conviction and the forgery convictions, to be served consecutively. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in placing the forgery convictions in grid block 3-F. He argues that, under OAR 253-12-020, the grid block should be 3-1.

There was no error. Under the sentencing guidelines, defendant’s convictions come within grid blocks that have presumptive probationary…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. EnosCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. State v. MarkhamCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  3. State v. RipkaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API