Case ID: or-app_192/html/0668-01.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 September 30, 2003,
    convictions on counts two, three, four, and five vacated and remanded for merger of convictions and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed April 7, 2004
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DALE RICHARD RANDANT, Appellant.
    
    CR98052; A111296
    87 P3d 688
    Andy Simrin, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services. Dale Richard Randant filed the supplemental brief pro se.
    
    Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
    Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge, and Leeson, Judge pro tempore.
    PER CURIAM
    
      
       Wollheim, J., vice Schuman, J.
    
   PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated murder based on the crime having been committed in the course of committing first-degree kidnapping, one count of aggravated murder based on the crime having been committed in the course of committing second-degree kidnapping, one count of intentional murder, one count of kidnapping in the first degree, one count of kidnapping in the second degree, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. All counts except the last involved the same victim and the same factual circumstances. Although defendant makes multiple assignments of error, the only issue that requires discussion involves the entry of the convictions.

The trial court had intended to enter convictions only on the first and last counts and to merge the remaining counts into the first conviction. However, it actually entered separate convictions on the remaining counts, merging them only for purposes of sentencing. Defendant assigns error to that action, and the state concedes that it was erroneous. We agree. See State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 596 P2d 1278 (1979); State v. Torres, 182 Or App 156, 160, 48 P3d 170, on recons, 184 Or 515, 59 P3d 47 (2002).

Convictions on counts two, three, four, and five vacated and remanded for merger of convictions and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.