From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mendosa

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 14, 1989
775 P.2d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

86-0382; CA A45770

Argued and submitted April 26, 1989

Remanded with instructions; otherwise affirmed June 14, 1989

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Washington County, Alan C. Bonebrake, Judge.

Lawrence J. Hall, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Vera Langer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Remanded with instructions to vacate conviction for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant appeals his convictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance (heroin), and two counts of delivering and two counts of possession of a controlled substance (heroin and cocaine). ORS 475.992. He first contends that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. However, there was evidence from which the jury could find the essential elements of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. He also contends that the court abused its discretion when it denied a pretrial motion for a continuance. We disagree.

Defendant also argues that the court should have merged his conviction for conspiracy to deliver heroin with his conviction for delivery of heroin. The state concedes that, although the issue was not raised below, the two convictions should have been merged. We agree. ORS 161.485 (3); State v. Burlew, 95 Or. App. 398, 399, 768 P.2d 447 (1989).

Defendant does not contend that the convictions for possession should be merged with the convictions for delivery of controlled substances. See State v. McNamer, 80 Or. App. 418, 722 P.2d 51 (1986).

Remanded with instructions to vacate conviction for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Mendosa

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 14, 1989
775 P.2d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

State v. Mendosa

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. GUADALUPE PEREZ MENDOSA, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 14, 1989

Citations

775 P.2d 905 (Or. Ct. App. 1989)
775 P.2d 905

Citing Cases

State v. Thomas

Defendant had not raised the error below, so he requested review of the error as one that is apparent on the…