State v. Ostrom

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. White

    280 Or. App. 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    However, when a defendant pleads guilty to committing a crime within a range of dates, the trial court can consider the crime to have been committed on any of the dates within the range. See State v. Ostrom , 257 Or.App. 520, 521, 306 P.3d 788 (2013) (court properly denied merger of multiple counts of second-degree theft committed against same victim based on guilty pleas that covered overlapping range of dates); see also Hibbard v. Board of Parole , 144 Or.App. 82, 88, 925 P.2d 910 (1996), vac'd on other grounds , 327 Or. 594, 965 P.2d 1022 (1998) (when defendant pleads guilty to committing a crime within a date range and thereby fails to limit the plea temporally, defendant “assent[s] to the broadest construction of his pleas, i.e. , that the state could prove that he committed the offenses on any of the dates alleged in the indictment” (emphasis omitted)). Here, the sentencing court could find for purposes of merger that the incidents of identity theft comprising the five counts occurred on dates separate from each other and, therefore, that each count was separated by a sufficient pause.

  2. State v. White

    280 Or. App. 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)

    However, when a defendant pleads guilty to committing a crime within a range of dates, the trial court can consider the crime to have been committed on any of the dates within the range. See State v. Ostrom, 257 Or App 520, 521, 306 P3d 788 (2013) (court properly denied merger of multiple counts of second-degree theft committed against same victim based on guilty pleas that covered overlapping range of dates); see also Hibbard v. Board of Parole, 144 Or App 82, 88, 925 P2d 910 (1996), vac'd on other grounds, 327 Or 594, 965 P2d 1022 (1998) (when defendant pleads guilty to committing a crime within a date range and thereby fails to limit the plea temporally, defendant "assent[s] to the broadest construction of his pleas, i.e., that the state could prove that he committed the offenses on any of the dates alleged in the indictment" (emphasis omitted)). Here, the sentencing court could find for purposes of merger that the incidents of identity theft comprising the five counts occurred on dates separate from each other and, therefore, that each count was separated by a sufficient pause.

  3. State v. Cid

    331 Or. App. 231 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    For example, when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to multiple crimes, each of which is alleged to have occurred during the same "on or between" date range, or within overlapping date ranges, the court may treat each crime as having been committed on a different date for purposes of the anti-merger statute. State v. White, 280 Or.App. 170, 171-72, 380 P.3d 1205 (2016), rev den, 360 Or. 752 (2017) (holding that merger was not required where the defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of identity theft, which were alleged to have occurred "within an overlapping range of dates," because "the sentencing court could find for purposes of merger that the incidents of identity theft comprising the five counts occurred on dates separate from each other and, therefore, that each count was separated by a sufficient pause"); State v. Ostrom, 257 Or.App. 520, 521, 306 P.3d 788 (2013) (similar); Hibbard, 144 Or.App. at 88 (similar).

  4. State v. Slagle

    297 Or. App. 392 (Or. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times
    In Slagle, the defendant pleaded guilty—without any limitation or qualification (contained in a plea bargain or elsewhere)—to 10 counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, ORS 163.684.

    We have held that, where a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to committing crimes "on or between" a range of dates as alleged in the charging instrument, the state can prove that the defendant committed the offenses on any of the dates alleged because the defendant, "by failing to limit or qualify his pleas, * * * assent[s] to the broadest construction of his pleas." Hibbard v. Board of Parole , 144 Or. App. 82, 87-88, 925 P.2d 910 (1996), vac’d on other grounds , 327 Or. 594, 965 P.2d 1022 (1998) ; see also United States v. Broce , 488 U.S. 563, 570, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989) (in pleading guilty, a defendant admits to "the crime charged against him" and the factual predicate underlying the conviction (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. White , 280 Or. App. 170, 171-72, 380 P.3d 1205 (2016), rev. den. , 360 Or. 752, 388 P.3d 727 (2017) (following Hibbard ); State v. Ostrom , 257 Or. App. 520, 521-22, 306 P.3d 788 (2013) (same). Our reasoning from Hibbard , Ostrom , and White applies here: Because defendant pleaded guilty without qualifying his pleas, he assented to the broader construction that he possessed 10 visual recordings of different children.