Opinion · Court of Appeals of Oregon
State v. Tremillion
111 Or. App. 375
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals of Oregon
- Jurisdiction
- Oregon
- Date
- 1992-02-12
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- holding that error in imposing sentence of 15 to 18 months on one count was harmless given that the sentence was imposed concurrently to a 58-month sentence for another count, because the error could not affect the defendant’s actual period of imprisonment
- affirming despite conceded sentencing error where error did not affect period of imprisonment and did not result in any adverse consequences
- affirming, despite conceded sentencing error, when error did not affect period of imprisonment and did not result in any adverse consequences
- sentencing error did not require remedial action when it could not affect actual term of imprisonment
- the existence of a concurrent sentence rendered harmless any error relating to the challenged sentence
- no remedial action is required when an erroneous sentence is imposed concurrently with a legally permissible sentence and “cannot affect defendant’s actual period of imprisonment”
- sentence of “15 to 18 months’ imprisonment” unlawfully indeterminate
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Tremillion. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 18 opinions
Defendant pled no contest to a charge of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons (felony hit and run). ORS 811.705(1). The sentencing court imposed a sentence of 15 to 18 months imprisonment, the presumptive range for grid block 6 C. Defendant argues that the court erred in not sentencing him to a definite term of imprisonment.
The state concedes that defendant is correct. OAR 253-05-001 requires a term of imprisonment “within the durational range of months stated in the grid block.” OAR 253-05-005 requires that the judgment of conviction “shall state the length of incarceration * * *.” However, the state contends that the error requires no remedial action. We agree.
The sentence imposed is concurrent with a 58-month term of imprisonment for defendant’s conviction for kidnapping in the second degree, ORS 163.225, and cannot affect defendant’s actual period of imprisonment. There are ho adverse consequences about which he may complain. See State v. Dorsey, 44 Or App 721, 607 P2d 204 (1980); State v. Larsen, 44 Or App 643, 606 P2d 1159, rev den 289 Or 373 (1980); see also State v. Yost, 28 Or App 803, 561 P2d 657, rev den (1977).
Affirmed.