Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THOMAS RAY SANCHEZ, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-01-22
Citations: 111 Or. App. 116
Docket Number: 90-04-33301; CA A66117
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THOMAS RAY SANCHEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 111
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted August 30, 1991,
affirmed January 22, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THOMAS RAY SANCHEZ, Appellant.
(90-04-33301; CA A66117)
824 P2d 1191
J. Marvin Kuhn, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance as part of a scheme or network. There is no record that he filed a demurrer. He pled guilty as part of an agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to stipulate that defendant would be sentenced under gridblock 8G and agreed not to prosecute defendant on a second felony drug offense. Defendant's assignment of error is that the court erred in sentencing him to 22 months imprisonment, which is within the presumptive range for gridblock 8G. He contends that, because after he was sentenced we held that the "scheme or network" language violated the Oregon constitution, his sentence must be vacated. See State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130, rev dismissed 312 Or 76, 815 P2d 201 (1991).
There is no authority for us to review the sentence here. ORS 138.222(2)(d); State v. Rathbone I, 110 Or App 414, 823 P2d 430 (1991).
Affirmed.