Court of Appeals of Oregon· 3/27/1996
State v. Perry
Citations
- 914 P.2d 29
- 140 Or. App. 18
- 1996 Ore. App. LEXIS 412
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reviewing, under ORS 138.222(4)(a), a claim that the trial court lacked authority to modify a sentence, even though the defendant pleaded guilty
- delivery of defendant to ODOC custody on concurrent sentences meant both judgments had been executed
- same where court amended sentences to provide that they would be served consecutively, rather than concurrently
- trial court lacks the authority to modify a sentence once the defendant has started serving the sentence”
- because defendant had already begun serving presumptively concurrent sentences trial court lacked authority to modify judgment to render sentences consecutive
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Deits, De Muniz Haselton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. DeCampCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-02-03· cited 60×
- State v. JacobsCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-07-27· cited 30×
- State v. FrenchCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2006-10-11· cited 10×
- State v. HamlinCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1997-12-03· cited 7×
- State v. LebeckCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-12-27· cited 5×
- State v. ZimmermanCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2000-04-19· cited 4×
- State v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-02-10· cited 4×
- State v. WhitlockCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2003-04-03· cited 3×
- State v. FerresCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2011-06-01· cited 1×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.