Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

111 Or. App. 108

State v. Medina

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 22, 1992

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1992-01-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1992

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-01-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM

¶1Defendant appeals his convictions by a jury for delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance as part of a scheme or network. ORS 475.992; OAR 253-04-002(3), App 4. He did not demur to the indictment but, before sentencing, challenged the constitutionality of the scheme or network language. He has preserved his challenge to the sentence imposed. The state concedes that the sentence is improper. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 701 (1991). We accept that concession.

¶2Because we remand for resentencing on that ground, we need not address defendant’s other assignment of error.

¶3Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.

/111/orapp/108 · .json · Public domain