Categories: Oregon Supreme Court

STATE v. BELLEK, 316 Or. 654 (1993)

856 P.2d 616

STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. CHARLES WILLARD BELLEK, Respondent on Review.

CC 90051007; CA A68579; SC S39627Oregon Supreme Court.Argued and submitted May 4, 1993
decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed in part on different grounds; case remanded to the circuit court for resentencing June 17, 1993.

In Banc

On review from the Court of Appeals.[*]

[*] Appeal from Linn County Circuit Court, Jackson L. Frost, Judge. 114 Or. App. 17, 834 P.2d 458 (1992).

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Eric R. Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.

PER CURIAM

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, in part on different grounds. The case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Page 655

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE IS BLANK.]

Page 656

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of murder, ORS 163.115, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 121-month minimum under ORS 137.637. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the 121-month minimum sentence, but remanded for resentencing, holding that “[i]t was error to sentence defendant to life imprisonment.”State v. Bellek, 114 Or. App. 17, 20, 834 P.2d 458 (1992).

For the reasons stated in State v. Morgan, 316 Or. 553, 856 P.2d 612 (1993), decided this day, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that set aside the term of life imprisonment, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed defendant’s conviction and 121-month minimum sentence, and remand the case to the circuit court with directions to delete the sentence of “imprisonment for life” and impose, instead, a judgment that provides for post-prison supervision “for the remainder of the [defendant’s] life, unless the Board finds a shorter term appropriate.” OAR 253-05-004 (1).

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, in part on different grounds. The case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

Page 657

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 856 P.2d 616

Recent Posts

STATE v. MCCARTHY, 501 P.3d 478 (2021)

501 P.3d 478 (2021)369 Or. 129 STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review, v. Charles Steven…

8 months ago

STATE EX REL. S.M. v. A.S., 196 P.3d 26 (2008)

044230S0; A134887. 196 P.3d 26 (2008) 223 Or. App. 421 STATE of Oregon ex rel.…

7 years ago

STATE v. McNALLY, 361 Or. 314 (2017)

April 20, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent…

9 years ago

STATE v. HAUGEN, 361 Or. 284 (2017)

March 30, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON,…

9 years ago

IN THE MATTER OF BROWN, 361 Or. 241 (2017)

361 Or. 241 In the Matter of the Compensation of Royce L. Brown, Sr., Claimant.…

9 years ago

IN RE ROLLER, 361 Or 234 (2017)

234                                  March 9, 2017                              No. 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE…

9 years ago