Case ID: or-app_97/html/0325-01.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 July 20, 1988, reconsideration denied August 18, petition for review denied October 3, 1989
    affirmed June 21,
    (308 Or 405)
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KURT DAYTON GEHRING, Appellant.
    
    (10-87-03451; CA A46610)
    775 P2d 918
    Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
    Linda DeVries Grimms, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Riggs, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of kidnapping in the first degree, ORS 163.235, and two counts of public indecency. ORS 163.465. The court imposed two consecutive thirty-year prison terms as a dangerous offender on the two kidnapping charges and two consecutive one-year sentences on the public indecency charges. It also ordered that the two sets of consecutive sentences run concurrently. On appeal, defendant contends that the court’s findings are insufficient to support imposition of dangerous offender sanctions under ORS 161.725 or consecutive sentences under ORS 137.122.

Because defendant pleaded guilty and the court imposed a sentence, we review his contentions under ORS 138.050. State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461, 464, 770 P2d 581 (1989). Under that provision, we may review the sentence only as to whether it exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. State v. Bateman, 95 Or App 456, 464, 771 P2d 314 (1989); State v. Loyer, 303 Or 612, 740 P2d 177 (1987). Defendant’s contentions do not challenge the length or constitutionality of the sentences and are therefore outside our scope of review.

Affirmed.