Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOHN HASSELBACK, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1983-10-19
Citations: 65 Or. App. 223
Docket Number: 10-80-10695; CA A26800
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOHN HASSELBACK, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 65
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted September 20,
affirmed as modified October 19, 1983,
reconsideration denied February 24,
petition for review denied March 20,1984 (296 Or 638)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOHN HASSELBACK, Appellant.
(10-80-10695; CA A26800)
670 P2d 632
Marilyn C. McManus, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem. Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Kay Kiner James, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.
Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this criminal case, appellant seeks reversal on evidentiary grounds of his two convictions for possession of a controlled substance. In the alternative, he seeks a remand for resentencing on the ground that his two convictions should have been merged. We find no error with respect to appellant's evidentiary claims.
The merger question arises out of the trial court's entry of convictions for both the offense of illegal possession of a controlled substance (more than one ounce of marijuana or the concentrated resinous extract of marijuana (hashish)) and the lesser-included offense of illegal possession of a controlled substance (less than one ounce of marijuana) under the same count in the indictment. The state confesses error. It urges, however, that, inasmuch as the trial court expressly held that, "for the purpose of imposing sentence," the two offenses would be merged, no purpose would be served by a remand.
In these rare circumstances, we agree. Pursuant to our authority under Or Const, Art VII, §3, we modify the judgment in this case by deleting the judgment for the lesser-included offense of illegal possession of a controlled substance (less than one ounce of marijuana). The conviction for illegal possession of a controlled substance (hashish) is affirmed, as is appellant's sentence.