Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAVID EDWIN BROWN, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-03-31
Citations: 119 Or. App. 162
Docket Number: 10-91-09590; CA A73889
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAVID EDWIN BROWN, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Warren and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 119
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs February 26,
remanded for resentencing in part; otherwise affirmed March 31, 1993
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAVID EDWIN BROWN, Appellant.
(10-91-09590; CA A73889)
849 P2d 547
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the brief for appellant.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Warren and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of seven counts of burglary in the second degree, ORS 164.215, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4)(b). He appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed on seven of the convictions. The state concedes that the court erred in imposing 90 days incarceration on each of those convictions under OAR 253-05-013(3). That rule does not apply when, as in this case, incarceration terms of presumptively probationary sentences are served consecutively to a sentence that includes a prison term. OAR253-12-020(2)(d); State v. Holliday, 110 Or App 426, 824 P2d 1148, rev den 313 Or 211 (1992).
Defendant also argues that the court erred in imposing 18 months probation on each consecutive sentence. The primary offense has a post-prison supervision term of 36 months. When a sentence of probation is imposed consecutively to one of incarceration, the probationary term "merges" into the term of post-prison supervision. State v. Dummitt, 115 Or App 487, 839 P2d 246 (1992).
The state argues that all the sentences should be remanded for resentencing and invites us to overrule State v. Smith, 116 Or App 558, 842 P2d 805 (1992), in which we held that the court on remand may resentence only on the convictions on which erroneous sentences were imposed. We decline the state's invitation.
Remanded for resentencing on counts 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 35; otherwise affirmed.