Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROXIE A. HUXTABLE, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1989-09-27
Citations: 98 Or. App. 588
Docket Number: DA371152, C88-05-33640; CA A49554 (Control), A49555
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROXIE A. HUXTABLE, Appellant.
Judges: Before Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 98
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 28,
remanded with instructions to delete “additional orders” in loitering sentence; otherwise affirmed September 27, 1989
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROXIE A. HUXTABLE, Appellant.
(DA371152, C88-05-33640; CA A49554 (Control), A49555)
(Cases Consolidated)
779 P2d 631
Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Janet Metcalf, 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 Graber, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant challenges probation conditions imposed after her convictions for escape in the second degree, ORS 162.155, and loitering to solicit prostitution. Portland City Code § 14.24.050(b). We direct deletion of "additional orders" imposed as part of the loitering sentence and do not address the other issues raised because they are moot.
Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in jail on the loitering charge and placed on five years probation with additional conditions on the escape charge. The judgment for loitering recites "additional orders" consistent with the conditions of probation on the escape charge. Defendant argues, the state concedes and the record reveals that the additional conditions were mistakenly added. See ORS 137.010; State v. Johnson, 96 Or App 641, 773 P2d 812 (1989).
Remanded with instructions to delete "additional orders" imposed in the loitering sentence; otherwise affirmed.
We review the condition of probation under ORS 138.040, even though defendant pleaded guilty. State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461, 770 P2d 581 (1989).
On October 5,1988, defendant was found in violation of a probation condition that she remain in the New Beginnings Program. As a result, the court ordered defendant imprisoned in the Multnomah County Jail with her probation to end "AT THE END OF JAIL TIME."