Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT AKIM JOSHUA LEEN, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-06-24
Citations: 113 Or. App. 595
Docket Number: 91CR0038; CA A71393
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT AKIM JOSHUA LEEN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 113
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 29,
convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing June 24, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT AKIM JOSHUA LEEN, Appellant.
(91CR0038; CA A71393)
832 P2d 49
Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and James H. Juliussen, Certified Law Student, Salem.
Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The state concedes that the trial court erred in ordering defendant to submit to random substance tests at the request of a probation officer without requiring that the officer have reasonable grounds to believe that defendant is then violating the prohibition of alcohol use. State v. Kestner, 109 Or App 684, 820 P2d 824 (1991); State v. Collins, 109 Or App 682, 820 P2d 902 (1991); State v. Hagger, 107 Or App 251, 252, 810 P2d 1356 (1991). We accept the concession.
The parties do not agree about the other issue. Defendant contends that the court imposed consecutive presumptive probation terms, contrary to OAR 253-12-020(3) (b). The state contends that the court placed defendant on probation for a single period of 36 months on the counts on which he was convicted and then ordered him to serve 45 days in jail on Count 1 and 15 days on Count 2 as conditions of probation. On that basis, the state argues that only the periods of incarceration were ordered to be consecutive. Although the state's guess at what the trial court intended is probably correct, the judgment is ambiguous. On remand, the court can establish what it intended.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.