Case ID: or-app_108/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 20,
    conviction affirmed; sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing August 21, 1991
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM FRANK POWELL, Appellant.
    
    (89-2768CR; CA A64900)
    816 P2d 662
    Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Michael M. Pacheco, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
    Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted after his guilty plea of theft in the first degree committed before November 1,1989. ORS 164.055. The trial court sentenced him to pay restitution, suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on probation and also sentenced him to serve ten days in the county jail. Although defendant’s assignments of error raise issues that either were not preserved for appeal or that require no discussion, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

The state correctly points out that the sentence is fatally flawed. The sentencing court lacked authority to order probation and also to impose a sentence. ORS 137.010(7); State v. Vasby, 101 Or App 1, 4, 788 P2d 1024 (1990). Because the trial court purported to sentence defendant to pay restitution and to serve a ten-day jail term, as well as to place him on probation, the sentence must be vacated.

Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing.