Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERIEA LEE BRYAN, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-04-17
Citations: 140 Or. App. 446
Docket Number: 94CR-2562FE; CA A88506
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERIEA LEE BRYAN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 140
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 11,
affirmed April 17,
petition for review denied December 3, 1996 (324 Or 464)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. SHERIEA LEE BRYAN, Appellant.
(94CR-2562FE; CA A88506)
915 P2d 482
Robert J. McCrea argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was McCrea, P.C.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Haselton, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from his convictions for felony murder, manslaughter in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree and failure to perform the duties of a driver. ORS 163.115; ORS 163.118; ORS 163.235; ORS 811.705. We write only to address defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his motions for a new trial on the basis of inconsistent verdicts. Inconsistency of verdicts is not a basis on which to grant a new trial. State v. Watkins, 67 Or App 657, 679 P2d 882, rev den 297 Or 272 (1984).
Affirmed.