From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Browder

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 5, 1984
68 Or. App. 723 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

C 83-02-30852; CA A29206

Argued and submitted April 25, 1984

Convictions affirmed, remanded for resentencing June 27, 1984 Appellant's reconsideration denied July 27, 1984 State's reconsideration denied August 17, 1984 Appellant's petition for review denied August 21, 1984 State's petition for review allowed September 5, 1984

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

James R. Ellis Judge.

Stephen J. Williams, 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.

RICHARDSON, P. J.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Defendant appeals his convictions for robbery in the first degree (ORS 164.415) and kidnapping in the second degree (ORS 163.225) arising out of the same criminal episode. He contends that the in-court identification of him by the victim should have been suppressed. He also challenges the minimum sentences imposed pursuant to ORS 144.110(1) and 161.610. We affirm the convictions and remand for resentencing.

The court found that the out-of-court identification procedure used by the law enforcement officers was not impermissibly suggestive and that the in-court identification was proper. We agree.

The court sentenced defendant to 14 years imprisonment on the robbery charge and imposed a seven-year minimum term pursuant to ORS 144.110(1). On the kidnap charge, the court sentenced defendant to eight years imprisonment with a four-year minimum term pursuant to ORS 144.110(1). The court found that defendant had used a gun in the commission of both charges and imposed a five-year minimum term on each charge pursuant to ORS 161.610. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, including the minimum terms.

Defendant first contends that the imposition of minimum terms of imprisonment violates ORS 161.025, Article I, § 16, of the Oregon Constitution and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That contention was disposed of in State v. Turner, 296 Or. 451, 676 P.2d 873 (1984).

Defendant next contends that consecutive minimum sentences cannot be imposed under ORS 161.610 for a series of felonies arising out of the same criminal episode. Defendant is correct. State v. Hardesty, 68 Or. App. 591, 682 P.2d 824 (1984).

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.


Summaries of

State v. Browder

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 5, 1984
68 Or. App. 723 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

State v. Browder

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONNIE BROWDER, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 5, 1984

Citations

68 Or. App. 723 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
683 P.2d 558

Citing Cases

State v. Hardesty

The Court of Appeals in State v. Hardesty, 68 Or. App. 591, 682 P.2d 824 (1984), held that the statute…