From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Shafer

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 23, 1993
843 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

91-05-32296; CA A71947

Argued and submitted September 30, 1992

Affirmed December 2, 1992 Reconsideration denied February 17, 1993 Petition for review denied March 23, 1993 ( 315 Or. 644)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

Frank L. Bearden, Judge.

Eric R. Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


Defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree and theft in the first degree. ORS 164.225; ORS 164.015. The sentencing court imposed a departure sentence of 60 months on the burglary conviction and a consecutive sentence of 30 days incarceration on the theft conviction, which is within the presumptive sentence.

Defendant failed to preserve his claims of error that the departure sentence was not supported by substantial and compelling reasons and that the court failed to make the appropriate findings before imposing consecutive sentences. Citing State v. Haydon, 113 Or. App. 205, 832 P.2d 457 (1992), he also argues that ORS 137.635 does not apply to felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, and that, therefore, the court erred in imposing a sentence pursuant to that statute.

On reconsideration, we withdrew the opinion in Haydon and held that ORS 137.635 should be read consistently with the guidelines, and that the maximum term is the one under the guidelines. State v. Haydon, 116 Or. App. 347, 842 P.2d 410 (1992). Defendant's 60-month term of imprisonment was a durational departure. The provisions of ORS 137.635 that were included in the sentence are that defendant will serve the sentence without parole, temporary leave or reduction in sentence. There was no error.

The Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision has no general authority to parole an inmate sentenced under the guidelines. ORS 144.050; 1989 Or Laws, ch 790, § 28.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Shafer

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 23, 1993
843 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

State v. Shafer

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LEE RENFROW SHAFER III, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 23, 1993

Citations

843 P.2d 462 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
843 P.2d 462

Citing Cases

State v. Walker

We have answered that argument contrary to his position. State v. Shafer, 116 Or. App. 667, 843 P.2d 462…

State v. Brown

We do not agree with the state's assertion that defendant's claim of error is not reviewable. First, the…