Summary
concluding that drug "scheme or network" crime seriousness enhancement factor was unconstitutionally vague
Summary of this case from State v. GallegosOpinion
CC 89-1379; CA A65221 (Control), CC 89-1380; CA A65222, CC 89-1410; CA A65223, CC 89-1411; CA A65224, CC 89-1422; CA A65225, CC 89-1423; CA A65226, SC S37943 (Cases Consolidated)
Argued and submitted July 9, 1991
Review dismissed August 29, 1991
In Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.
Appeal from Clatsop County Circuit Court, William L. Jackson, Judge pro tempore. 105 Or. App. 434, 806 P.2d 130 (1991).
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Elizabeth A. Baldwin, Astoria, argued the cause and filed the response to the petition for respondents on review.
PER CURIAM
Review dismissed.
This case involves demurrers challenging certain penal law provisions for vagueness. After this court allowed review of these consolidated cases, State v. Moeller, 105 Or. App. 434, 806 P.2d 130, rev allowed 311 Or. 349, 811 P.2d 144 (1991), the 1991 Legislative Assembly superseded the penal provisions that gave rise to the challenge. Or Laws 1991, ch 690, § 1 (HB 2390 B-Eng § 1) (effective July 25, 1991). Accordingly, the court has determined that the order granting review of the Court of Appeals' decision should be dismissed.
The words challenged were "as part of a * * * scheme or network." OAR 253-04-002, App 4 (approved by Or Laws 1989, ch 790, § 87).
Review dismissed.