State v. Merrick

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ORS 161.067(3) required the merger of the defendant’s three convictions for first-degree possession of a forged instrument arising from one occasion when the defendant possessed several counterfeit bills
• holding that ORS 161.067(3) required the merger of the defendant’s three convictions for first-degree possession of a forged instrument arising from one occasion when the defendant possessed several counterfeit bills
• where the defendant argued that his two offenses should merge “for sentencing purposes,” the defendant preserved his merger argument because the trial court actually considered whether the offenses should merge
• merger required when the defendant was convicted of multiple charges of forgery based on a single incident in which the defendant was found to be in possession of multiple instruments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Huffman
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-03-03· cited 33×
• State v. G. L. D.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2012-11-07· cited 20×
• State v. Mason
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-03-30· cited 9×
• Burcham v. Franke
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2014-09-04· cited 8×
• State v. Salvador
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2010-09-29· cited 6×
• State v. Bell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-10-05· cited 4×
• State v. Moscote-Saavedra
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-07-13· cited 3×
• State v. Campbell
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2009-03-11

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. White
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2006-11-09· cited 66×
• State v. Glaspey
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2004-11-18· cited 43×