Case ID: or-app_77/html/0308-01.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 December 23, 1985,
    case no. C84-12-35437 reversed and remanded, case no. C83-07-33480 affirmed January 22,
    State’s reconsideration and Ball’s reconsideration denied March 28, both petitions for review pending 1986
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD LEE BALL, Appellant.
    
    (C83-07-33480, C84-12-35437; A36004 (Control), A36005)
    (Cases Consolidated)
    711 P2d 988
    John P. Daugirda, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, defendant appeals three convictions for possession of a controlled substance and the revocation of a separate probation he was serving. As the state concedes, defendant’s convictions must be reversed and remanded for trial under State v. Westlund, 75 Or App 43, 705 P2d 208, rev allowed 300 Or 332 (1985). However, defendant’s probation revocation — which was based on matters other than the three convictions — was not erroneous. It is affirmed.

Case number C84-12-35437 reversed and remanded; case number C83-07-33480 affirmed. 
      
       Defendant’s other arguments for reversal of these convictions are not well taken.