Oregon Supreme Court - February 8, 2018
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Rankin Johnson • February 12, 2018 • no comments
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
'''Sentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consideration''' <p> | '''Sentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consideration''' <p> | ||
| − | Evidence of Boyd delivery is not sufficient to prove the CDO factor of “delivery for consideration.” < | + | Evidence of Boyd delivery is not sufficient to prove the CDO factor of “delivery for consideration.” <br /> |
| + | |||
The court considered text, context, and legislative history to determine that the phrase “for consideration” in ORS 475.900(1)(b) refers to a genuine executed delivery for consideration, not an attempted or constructive delivery. ''C.f. State v. Boyd'', 92 Or App 51, 54, rev den, 307 Or 77 (1988). | The court considered text, context, and legislative history to determine that the phrase “for consideration” in ORS 475.900(1)(b) refers to a genuine executed delivery for consideration, not an attempted or constructive delivery. ''C.f. State v. Boyd'', 92 Or App 51, 54, rev den, 307 Or 77 (1988). | ||
Revision as of 11:36, February 13, 2018
Written by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCING-CDO FACTORSSentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consideration
Evidence of Boyd delivery is not sufficient to prove the CDO factor of “delivery for consideration.”
The court considered text, context, and legislative history to determine that the phrase “for consideration” in ORS 475.900(1)(b) refers to a genuine executed delivery for consideration, not an attempted or constructive delivery. C.f. State v. Boyd, 92 Or App 51, 54, rev den, 307 Or 77 (1988).
Because the evidence did not prove a genuine delivery for consideration, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s MJOA as to that factor. Remanded for resentencing.
State v. Villagomez, 362 Or 390 (2018) (Walters, J.)
