State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 23 November 1966 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Earl Lesley ROBERTS, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Earl Lesley Roberts filed briefs in pro. per.
Avery W. Thompson, Dist. Atty. and Doyle L. Schiffman, Deputy Dist. Atty., Roseburg, filed a brief for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of assault and robbery while armed with a loaded Mauser pistol. At the trial of the case he was represented by appointed counsel. After the conviction another attorney was appointed to represent him on this appeal. That attorney perfected the appeal. The attorney later filed an affidavit in which he explained his study of the case and his inability to find any error. He swore that he could not conscientiously proceed further with the appeal. The trial court permitted the attorney to withdraw. No other attorney was appointed and defendant has filed briefs in his own behalf.
The pertinent allegations of the indictment in this case are:
'The said EARL LESLEY ROBERTS on the 2nd day of July, A.D. 1965, in the said County of Douglas and State of Oregon, then and there being armed with a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a loaded Mauser automatic pistol, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously assault one Beatrice Juanita Stevens by pointing said pistol at and towards the said Beatrice Juanita Stevens, who was then and there within shooting distance of said loaded pistol, and did then and there unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and take from the person of the said Beatrice Juanita Stevens a sum of money, to-wit: $2,030.95. * * *.'
Defendant's principal contention is that two crimes were charged in the indictment. By the very nature of the crime, ORS 163.290, it is necessary to allege an assault with a deadly weapon while perpetrating a robbery in order to allege the elements of the crime. The same form of allegation is necessary in indictments relating to other crimes in which the seriousness of the crime is aggravated if it is committed in the course of other criminal conduct, a felony killing, for example. There is nothing bad about combining the elements of two crimes, in a statute, to form the elements of another crime, or to enhance the penalty for an act if it is committed in the course of perpetrating another crime. Nor is there anything wrong about alleging the facts which constitute such a crime.
Defendant's contention is not a new one. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Gladden
...robbery armed with a dangerous weapon;" he received a 15-year sentence. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed on appeal, State v. Roberts, 245 Or. 97, 420 P.2d 391 (1966); 86 Or.Adv.Sh. 203, 437 P.2d 731 (1968). Petitioner now seeks relief in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. All ava......
-
Roberts v. Cupp, 23747.
...petitioner of armed assault and robbery, and his conviction was affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court in two opinions. State v. Roberts, 245 Or. 97, 420 P.2d 391, and State v. Roberts, 249 Or. 139, 437 P.2d The district court, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Selz v. California,......
-
State v. Romero
...his first appeal heard with counsel representing him. Applying State v. Roberts, 249 Or. 139, 437 P.2d 731 (1968), and State v. Roberts, 245 Or. 97, 420 P.2d 391 (1966), in which the second appeal was required to be heard, pursuant to Anders, supra, it appears that the defendant's contentio......
-
State v. Roberts
...and he was permitted to withdraw. The defendant filed his own briefs. The conviction was affirmed on November 23, 1966, State v. Roberts, 83 Or.Adv.Sh. 575, 420 P.2d 391. In Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (May 8, 1967), the United States Supreme C......