Legal Opinion

State v. Wolff

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 23, 2001No. 20-98-17720; A104277PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.

Defendant appeals his sentence for hindering prosecution. ORS 162.325. He contends that the trial court erred when it imposed an upward dispositional departure sentence. “We review to determine whether the court’s findings of fact and reasons justifying the departure are supported by the evidence in the record and constitute substantial and compelling reasons to depart as a matter of law. ORS 138.222(3)[.]” State v. Watkins, 146 Or App 338, 340, 932 P2d 107, rev den 325 Or 438 (1997); see also State v. Wilson, 111 Or App 147, 151, 826 P2d 1010 (1992) (“[W]e review the explanation of why the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
  2. State v. AllredCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2000
  3. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. State v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  5. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. DiltsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. State v. TeixeiraCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  3. State v. DavillaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  4. State v. LykinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  5. State v. PerezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API