Case ID: or-app_107/html/0239-01.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

CA A65821 argued and submitted April 5,
    CA A65876 argued and submitted March 22,
    convictions and sentences for conspiracy affirmed; convictions and sentences for possession of controlled substance vacated, reconsideration denied August 14,
    petition for review denied September 24, 1991 (312 Or 151)
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN VINCENT WIGGLESWORTH, Appellant. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. VERNELL WIGGLESWORTH, Appellant.
    
    (89C-21174, 89C-21173; CA A65821 (Control), A65876)
    (Consolidated for Opinion Only)
    810 P2d 411
    Mark J. Geiger, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant John Vincent Wigglesworth; Jay Edwards, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant Vernell Wigglesworth.
    Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    CA A65821 before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges; CA A65876 before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendants were found guilty of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, ORS 161.450, delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(1), and possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). At sentencing, the trial court merged the delivery charge into the conspiracy charge in each case and imposed separate concurrent sentences on the charges of conspiracy and possession.

Defendants contend that they cannot be sentenced separately for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and for possession of the same controlled substance. The state concedes that, because it cannot be assumed that the verdicts on the two charges were predicated on separate quantities of cocaine, each conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the conviction on which the trial court imposed the less severe sentence, should be vacated. State v. Clark, 98 Or App 478, 779 P2d 215 (1989).

Defendants’ other assignments need no discussion.

Conviction and sentence for conspiracy affirmed in each case; conviction and sentence for possession of controlled substance vacated in each case. 
      
       Although the cases were briefed and argued separately, we have consolidated them for the purpose of decision.