Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. STEVEN DOUGLAS GARRATT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1994-12-14
Citations: 131 Or. App. 755
Docket Number: 92-07-33916; CA A78088
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. STEVEN DOUGLAS GARRATT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 131
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted October 27,
remanded for entry of corrected judgment and resentencing December 14, 1994
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. STEVEN DOUGLAS GARRATT, Appellant.
(92-07-33916; CA A78088)
885 P2d 757
David K. Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from his convictions for solicitation to commit perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. ORS 162.065; ORS 161.435; ORS 161.450. The trial court imposed a sentence of 12 months of incarceration, with 36 months of post-prison supervision, on the conspiracy count and five years of probation on the solicitation count. Defendant argues on appeal that because ORS 161.485C2) precludes conviction of more than one inchoate crime for conduct aimed at the culmination of the same crime, the two offenses merged as a matter of law.
Defendant did not object to the trial court's failure to merge the two counts; however, on appeal, he argues that the error is apparent on the face of the record and requests that we exercise our discretion and review the error. ORAP 5.45(2). As the state concedes, defendant is correct that the error is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. Particularly in view of the state's concession, we are persuaded to exercise our discretion to review the unpreserved error. State v. Jones, 129 Or App 413, 879 P2d 881 (1994). We remand for entry of a corrected judgment imposing only one conviction and for resentencing.
Remanded for entry of a corrected judgment and resentencing.
ORS 161.485(2) provides:
"A person shall not be convicted of more than one offense defined by ORS 161.405 [attempt], 161.435 [solicitation] and 161.450 [conspiracy] for conduct designed to commit or to culminate in commission of the same crime."