State v. Burnell
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
| Writing for the Court | De MUNIZ |
| Citation | 129 Or.App. 105,877 P.2d 1228 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Ronald Arthur BURNELL, Appellant. C92-01-30078; CA A78155. |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1994 |
Page 1228
v.
Ronald Arthur BURNELL, Appellant.
Decided July 13, 1994.
Page 1229
Peter Gartlan, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Janet A. Klapstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen.
[129 Or.App. 106] Before ROSSMAN, P.J., and De MUNIZ and LEESON, JJ.
[129 Or.App. 107] De MUNIZ, Judge.
A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of felony murder, ORS 163.115(b), two counts of manslaughter in the second degree, ORS 163.125, one count of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, one count of arson in the first degree, ORS 164.325, two counts of assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175, five counts of assault in the third degree, ORS 163.165, and three counts of assault in the fourth degree. ORS 163.160. The court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 121 months on each of the felony murder convictions. The court also imposed a term of 60 months on the arson conviction, to be served consecutively to the murder term, and 18-month terms on each of the assault convictions, 1 each of which is to be served consecutively to the other and to the murder terms and the arson term. On both manslaughter convictions, the court sentenced defendant to 16-month terms to be served concurrently with one of the assault convictions. The court sentenced defendant to 36 months on the burglary conviction, to run concurrently with one of the felony murder convictions, both manslaughter convictions and one of the assault convictions. The court ordered post-prison supervision for life on both felony murder convictions and lesser post-prison terms on the other felony convictions. 2
On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred when it: entered convictions and imposed sentences on both manslaughter counts; entered convictions and imposed sentences for manslaughter and felony murder; entered convictions and imposed sentences for both felony murder and burglary when burglary was the felony underlying one of the felony murder counts; and entered convictions and sentences on each felony murder count.
Because a jury convicted defendant, we state the facts in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Lyons, 124 Or.App. 598, 600, 863 P.2d 1303 (1993). Defendant and Speidel lived together with their six-month old daughter, [129 Or.App. 108] Natasha, in Portland. In December, 1991, Speidel, along with Natasha and another child, left defendant and moved into a house that was occupied by Thornton and her son.
On December 21, 1991, defendant was baby sitting Natasha at the house Speidel shared with Thornton. When Speidel and her date, Johnson, returned, Speidel told defendant to leave. An argument ensued between Speidel and defendant. Defendant threatened Speidel and left. Later, defendant, who had been drinking heavily, reentered Speidel's residence using a key that he had found earlier, and set the Christmas tree on fire. The fire spread throughout the house. Speidel, Johnson, Thorton and the two older children sustained injuries but escaped by an upstairs window. Natasha...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Thompson
...holding that the convictions did not merge pursuant to ORS 161.067. 117 Or.App. at 122, 844 P.2d 209; see also State v. Burnell, 129 Or.App. 105, 877 P.2d 1228 (1994) (multiple murder convictions involving a single victim did not merge). Our holdings in Hessel and Burnell antedated Walton A......
-
State v. O'DONNELL
......545 (1893), which antedated Reinhart by two years and which was cited with approval in Reinhart, 26 Or. at 474, 38 P. 822, the court held that the application of that statute did not violate Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution. . 13. In State v. Burnell, 129 Or.App. 105, 109, 877 P.2d 1228 (1994), we held that, "[b]ecause burglary in the first degree contains no elements that differ from the felony murder statute, it is a true lesser included offense of the burglary felony murder count." As support for that proposition, we relied on Tucker, ......
-
State v. Paye
...required proof of an element that the other did not, as typically was our approach before Barrett . See, e.g. , State v. Burnell , 129 Or. App. 105, 108-09, 877 P.2d 1228 (1994) ; see also Bumgarner v. Nooth , 254 Or. App. 86, 94-97, 295 P.3d 52 (2012) (explaining how Barrett altered and cl......
-
State v. Barrett
...that were based on different underlying felonies, even though the convictions involved the same victim, in State v. Burnell, 129 Or.App. 105, 877 P.2d 1228 (1994). In Burnell, the defendant was convicted on two felony murder counts, each based on a different underlying felony but resulting ......