Oregon Supreme Court - March 22, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • April 11, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *'''Sentencing - CDO factors''' *'''LGBTQ issues </summary> '''Written by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' <br /> '''Sentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consi...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | '''Sentencing - CDO factors''' | |
| − | + | '''LGBTQ - issues | |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
| − | '''Sentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consideration''' | + | '''Sentencing-CDO factors - delivery for consideration''' |
“For consideration” sentence enhancement requires either an actual delivery for consideration or an agreement to do so. | “For consideration” sentence enhancement requires either an actual delivery for consideration or an agreement to do so. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
[http://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17027coll3/id/5872/rec/1f ''State v. Stewart''], 362 Or 638 (2018) (Walters, J.) | [http://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p17027coll3/id/5872/rec/1f ''State v. Stewart''], 362 Or 638 (2018) (Walters, J.) | ||
| − | '''LGBTQ Issues''' | + | '''LGBTQ - Issues''' |
Petition for review denied. J. Kistler wrote a concurring opinion, observing that the Board was apparently misgendering petitioner and that intertwined issues of gender identity and mental illness may have contributed to her criminal history. In light of the Board’s authority and the standard of review, J. Kistler agreed that denial of review was nonetheless appropriate. | Petition for review denied. J. Kistler wrote a concurring opinion, observing that the Board was apparently misgendering petitioner and that intertwined issues of gender identity and mental illness may have contributed to her criminal history. In light of the Board’s authority and the standard of review, J. Kistler agreed that denial of review was nonetheless appropriate. | ||
Latest revision as of 12:34, March 21, 2020
Written by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
Sentencing-CDO factors - delivery for consideration
“For consideration” sentence enhancement requires either an actual delivery for consideration or an agreement to do so.
Defendant made vague offers to sell methamphetamine to a stranger, and possessed methamphetamine when he was arrested shortly thereafter. He was charged with DCS for consideration. The trial court denied his MJOA, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and held that delivery for consideration does not apply to possession with the intent to deliver for consideration in the future; only a genuine delivery or agreement is sufficient. Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
State v. Stewart, 362 Or 638 (2018) (Walters, J.)
LGBTQ - Issues
Petition for review denied. J. Kistler wrote a concurring opinion, observing that the Board was apparently misgendering petitioner and that intertwined issues of gender identity and mental illness may have contributed to her criminal history. In light of the Board’s authority and the standard of review, J. Kistler agreed that denial of review was nonetheless appropriate.
Gomez v. Board of Parole 362 Or 412 (2018) (Per curiam, Kistler, J., concurring)
