Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. CHARLES WILLARD BELLEK, Respondent on Review
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-06-17
Citations: 316 Or. 654
Docket Number: CC 90051007; CA A68579; SC S39627
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. CHARLES WILLARD BELLEK, Respondent on Review.
Judges: PER CURIAM
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 316
Pages: 654–656

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted May 4,
decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed in part on different grounds; case remanded to the circuit court for resentencing June 17, 1993
STATE OF OREGON, Petitioner on Review, v. CHARLES WILLARD BELLEK, Respondent on Review.
(CC 90051007; CA A68579; SC S39627)
856 P2d 616
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem. '
Eric R. Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of murder, ORS 163.115, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 121-month minimum under ORS 137.637. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and the 121-month minimum sentence, but remanded for resentencing, holding that "[i]t was error to sentence defendant to life imprisonment." State v. Bellek, 114 Or App 17, 20, 834 P2d 458 (1992).
For the reasons stated in State v. Morgan, 316 Or 553, 856 P2d 612 (1993), decided this day, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that set aside the term of life imprisonment, affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed defendant's conviction and 121-month minimum sentence, and remand the case to the circuit court with directions to delete the sentence of "imprisonment for life" and impose, instead, a judgment that provides for post-prison supervision "for the remainder of the [defendant's] life, unless the Board finds a shorter term appropriate. ' ' OAR 253-05-004(1).
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, in part on different grounds. The case is remanded to the circuit court for resentencing consistent with this opinion.