Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

STATE v. SNIDER, 77 Or. App. 302 (1986)

STATE OF Or., Respondent, v. ARCHIE SNIDER, Appellant., 713 P.2d 46 (Or. Ct. App. 1986)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1986-01-22
Topic
general

STATE v. SNIDER, 77 Or. App. 302 (1986) 713 P.2d 46 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ARCHIE SNIDER, Appellant. 81-333C; CA A33289Oregon Court of Appeals.Argued and submitted April 24, 1986. Remanded for resentencing January 22, 1986.Reconsideration denied February 7, 1986.Petition for review denied February 25, 1986 (300 Or. 562).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. SNIDER, 77 Or. App. 302 (1986). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. SNIDER,77 Or. App. 302(1986)
713 P.2d 46
STATE OF OREGON,Respondent,v. ARCHIE SNIDER,Appellant.
81-333C; CA A33289
Oregon Court of Appeals.
Argued and submitted April 24, 1986.
Remanded for resentencing January 22, 1986.
Reconsideration denied February 7, 1986.
Petition for review denied February 25, 1986 (300 Or. 562).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Klamath County, Richard C. Beesley, Judge.
John Daugirda, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Stephen F. Peifer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Remanded for resentencing.Page 303
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from his convictions of felony murder, ORS163.115, kidnapping in the first degree, ORS163.235, and conspiracy to commit second degree kidnapping, ORS161.450and163.225, entered after a jury trial. We remand for resentencing.

Defendant makes three assignments of error, only the last of which requires discussion. The trial court merged the conspiracy and the kidnapping convictions with the felony murder conviction for sentencing purposes, and imposed a single life sentence. Defendant contends, and the state concedes, that the trial court should have merged the convictions themselves into a single conviction for felony murder. We agree.

Although the trial court's sentence order may be interpreted differently, it appears that defendant's convictions were not merged. On remand, the order should be clarified to reflect a single conviction for felony murder.

Remanded for resentencing.Page 304