Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LARRY ELLSWORTH HILL, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1986-05-14
Citations: 79 Or. App. 373
Docket Number: C85-02-30683; CA A37156
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LARRY ELLSWORTH HILL, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 79
Pages: 373–374

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 31,
affirmed as modified May 14,1986
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LARRY ELLSWORTH HILL, Appellant.
(C85-02-30683; CA A37156)
719 P2d 67
J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Christine Chute, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his conviction for theft in the first degree. The state confesses that the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years probation to run consecutively to a sentence imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269. We agree. See State v. Barnes, 58 Or App 516, 518, 648 P2d 1306 (1982). It appears that the imposition of the consecutive sentence may have been due to a scrivener's error. We modify the judgment to provide that the probation in this case shall run concurrently with the sentence in the other cases.
Defendant's other assignment of error is without merit, and we therefore affirm the judgment as modified.
Judgment modified to provide that sentence shall run concurrently with that imposed in cases C82-02-33994 and C85-06-32269; affirmed as modified.