Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Sparks

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided October 1, 1997No. 95CR0877; CA A90258Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partArmstrong, J.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in entering convictions on all six burglary counts against defendant. I disagree, however, with its conclusion that the offenses for which defendant was convicted were not part of a single criminal episode.

The majority relies upon State v. Fitzgerald, 267 Or 266, 516 P2d 1280 (1973), for its reasoning and concludes *298that because “a complete account of any one of the unlawful entries could be proven without reference to the others,” the burglaries must have been three separate transactions. I believe that the majority’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BoydOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State v. FitzgeraldOregon Supreme Court · 1973
  3. State v. HathawayCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. State v. CrumalCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
  5. State v. CliftonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API