Gill v. Cupp

This is an appeal from an order granting post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court held that the evidence presented at petitioner’s trial would not support a conviction for theft in the first degree.1 We disagree.

The post-conviction court’s holding was based on its finding that there was no evidence that the value of the stolen property was in excess of $200. Although that finding is correct, the court’s conclusion of law is wrong, because the indictment alleged that petitioner committed the theft “by selling the said property.” ORS 164.055(1)(c).2 Under the statute, the value of the…