Narrative Opinion Summary
Defendant appeals his jury convictions for delivery and possession of a controlled substance under ORS 475.992 and OAR 253-04-002(3). He did not challenge the indictment but questioned the constitutionality of the "scheme or network" language prior to sentencing. The state acknowledges that the imposed sentence is improper, referencing State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434. As a result of this concession, the court remands for resentencing without addressing the defendant's additional claims. The convictions are affirmed, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Convictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Despite the improper sentencing, the defendant's convictions for delivery and possession of a controlled substance were affirmed by the court.
Reasoning: The convictions are affirmed, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
Constitutionality of Statutory Languagesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant questioned the constitutionality of the 'scheme or network' language prior to sentencing, but the court did not address this constitutional challenge.
Reasoning: He did not challenge the indictment but questioned the constitutionality of the 'scheme or network' language prior to sentencing.
Improper Sentencing and Resentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court acknowledged the improper sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, following the state's concession and in line with precedent set by State v. Moeller.
Reasoning: The state acknowledges that the imposed sentence is improper, referencing State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434.