State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 01 May 1968 |
| Citation | 440 P.2d 371,250 Or. 59 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Rodney A. JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
James A. Pearson, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Stephen H. Keutzer, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John B. Leahy, Dist. Atty., and Fred A. Hartstrom, Deputy Dist. Atty., Eugene.
Before SLOAN, P.J., and GOODWIN and HOLMAN, JJ.
Defendant plead guilty to an information filed in Lane county, charging burglary within a dwelling. He was sentenced to a term of seven years to run consecutively with a previously imposed sentence for assault and armed robbery in Clackamas county. He appeals from the sentence claiming it is excessive. It is not. State v. Shannon, 1966, 242 Or. 404, 409 P.2d 911.
His second assignment involves the power of the court to enter a consecutive sentence. Prior to 1961, O.R.S. 137.160 specifically provided for consecutive sentences.
In 1961 that Section was repealed.
The legislative history of the repealing statute, Oregon Laws 1961, ch. 520, p. 948, reveals that the repeal was recommended by a Legislative Interim Committee on Criminal Law in a report to the 51st Legislative Assembly of 1961. The Committee report, at p. 16, recommended repeal of O.R.S. 137.160 because of the testimony given to the Committee by members of the Board of Parole and Probation that the last sentence of the statute making a consecutive sentence mandatory for one already imprisoned was detrimental to the parole and rehabilitation program.
The Committee therefore urged repeal of O.R.S. 137.160. The Committee also recommended the adoption of a statute permitting either concurrent or consecutive sentences.
The legislature repealed O.R.S. 137.160 but did not enact the recommended legislation replacing it. However, we feel certain that the legislature was aware that permissive legislation was not necessary. It is an inherent power of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Linthwaite, s. 80-281-C
...we find the trial court committed no error. State v. Garcia, supra; State v. Biles, 287 Or. 63, 597 P.2d 808 (1979); State v. Jones, 250 Or. 59, 440 P.2d 371 (1968); State v. Dinkel, supra; State v. Perkins, The dissent argues this result is contrary to Cloutier, supra, and our recent decis......
-
State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
...13 This court has held that courts have inherent power to structure sentences in certain respects. For example, in State v. Jones, 250 Or. 59, 61, 440 P.2d 371 (1968), this court held that the judiciary had inherent power to decide whether sentences should be served consecutively or concurr......
-
State v. Tanner
...to determine whether a defendant's sentence should be consecutive to or concurrent with other sentences. See generally State v. Jones, 250 Or. 59, 440 P.2d 371 (1968). However, as we recognized in State v. Trice, 146 Or.App. 15, 21, 933 P.2d 345 (1997), the legislature abrogated the court's......
-
State v. B. Y. (In re B. Y.)
...consecutive sentences in the adult context, and the reasoning applies with equal force to juvenile courts. See, e.g. , State v. Jones , 250 Or. 59, 61, 440 P.2d 371 (1968) ; State v. Norman , 71 Or. App. 389, 392, 692 P.2d 665 (1984), rev. den. , 299 Or. 31, 698 P.2d 964, cert. den. , 471 U......