Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LINCOLN EDWARD DODSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-02-26
Citations: 111 Or. App. 643
Docket Number: C 90-04-32061; CA A67852
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LINCOLN EDWARD DODSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 111
Pages: 643–644

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 31,
convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 26, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LINCOLN EDWARD DODSON, Appellant.
(C 90-04-32061; CA A67852)
825 P2d 662
Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Janet A. Klapstein, 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 Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his convictions for criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.450, solicitation to commit aggravated murder, ORS 161.435, and attempted murder. ORS 161.405; ORS 163.115.
Defendant first argues that his demurrer should have been allowed, because the indictment does not adequately identify his co-conspirators. The indictment was sufficient.
The court imposed consecutive sentences on the convictions on the conspiracy and solicitation counts. The state concedes that the consecutive sentences are unlawful, because those convictions merge under ORS 161.485. We agree.
Defendant also argues that the court erred in purporting to impose conditions of confinement and post-prison supervision. The state agrees that the court can only recommend conditions. State v. Potter, 108 Or App 480, 816 P2d 661 (1991). We accept that concession.
Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.