Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

661 P.2d 124

62 Or.App. 464

Docket No. 44601; CA A24858.

State v. Mastrilli

STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Terry Joseph MASTRILLI, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 6, 1983.

Argued and Submitted March 16, 1983.

Reconsideration Denied May 27, 1983.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 1983-04-06

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1992

4 state decisions

Relies on 39 Or. App. 901 - State v. DeChenne · State v. Mastrilli · State v. Ward

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-04-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Guy B. Greco, Newport, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Greco & Escobar, Newport.

¶2Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and William F. Gary, Sol. Gen., Salem.

¶3Before GILLETTE, P.J., and WARDEN and YOUNG, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant was convicted of burglary. He assigns six errors on appeal. We find merit only in the last, which concerns the sentence imposed. The trial judge directed that, inter alia, the sentence be served consecutively " to any time the defendant is [hereafter] ordered to serve as a result of parole violation in Montana if the defendant is returned to Montana before this sentence is served." Imposing a sentence consecutive to an as yet unexecuted sentence is impermissible. See State v. DeChenne,39 Or. App. 901, 594 P.2d 831 (1979); State v. Ward,59 Or. App. 42, 650 P.2d 164 (1982).

¶6The state agrees that, if the challenged phrase is deemed impermissible, it may be deleted without remanding the case for resentencing. See Or. Const., Art. VII (Amended), § 3. It is so ordered.

¶7Judgment of conviction affirmed. Sentence modified by deleting requirement that defendant serve the term imposed consecutively to any sentence which may be imposed for parole violation in Montana.

/661/p2d/124 · .json · Public domain