From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bell

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 8, 2002
46 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

990331898; A111069

Argued and submitted March 28, 2002.

Filed: May 8, 2002.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County. Janice Wilson, Judge.

Rankin Johnson IV, Deputy Public Defender, filed the opening briefs for appellant. With him on the briefs was David E. Groom, Public Defender. Larry Lydell Bell, Sr. filed the supplemental brief pro se.

Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and KISTLER and BREWER, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Defendant was indicted for three counts of arson in the first degree based on his intentionally igniting a fire in a motel room. Count one alleged that he damaged the motel, a dwelling; count two alleged that he damaged a dwelling and its contents, recklessly placing a dwelling, the motel, in danger; and count three alleged that he damaged a dwelling and contents, recklessly placing persons, the employees and occupants of the motel, in danger. All charges were based on ORS 164.325(1)(b). On count one, the jury found him not guilty of arson but guilty of reckless endangerment; it convicted him of counts two and three. The trial court merged counts one and two and sentenced him separately on count three. On appeal defendant argues that it should have merged all three counts. The state concedes that he is correct, and we agree. State v. Barrett , 331 Or. 27, 10 P.3d 901 (2000); State v. Beason , 170 Or. App. 414, 12 P.3d 560 (2000), rev den 331 Or. 692 (2001).

Defendant also raises issues under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He did not present those issues to the trial court, and we decline to consider them. Finally, he asserts that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent. However, he did not object before the trial court dismissed the jury, and he has therefore waived those arguments for appeal. See ORCP 59 G(4); ORS 136.330; Building Structures, Inc. v. Young , 328 Or. 100, 110, 968 P.2d 1287 (1998).

Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Bell

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 8, 2002
46 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

State v. Bell

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LARRY LYDELL BELL, SR., Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

46 P.3d 216 (Or. Ct. App. 2002)
46 P.3d 216

Citing Cases

State v. Luers

fendant, each incident properly should result in the conviction for only a single offense, because the…