Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Gary D. GROW, Appellant.
Defendant was convicted of second-degree unlawful sexual penetration, first-degree sexual abuse, and third-degree sexual abuse. On appeal, he seeks reversal of his convictions on the ground that the trial court erroneously admitted a school assignment paper written by one of the victims. We reject that argument without discussion. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing an excessive period of post-prison supervision. The state concedes that error and, for the reasons set forth below, we accept the state's concession and remand for resentencing.
On the conviction for unlawful sexual penetration, the trial court sentenced defendant to a 75-month term of imprisonment and a 10-year period of post-prison supervision.1 ORS 144.103 provides that, for certain sexual offenses-including unlawful sexual penetration-the defendant “shall serve a term of post-prison supervision that shall continue until the term of the post-prison supervision, when added to the term of imprisonment served, equals the maximum statutory indeterminate sentence for the violation.” The maximum statutory indeterminate sentence for second-degree unlawful sexual penetration, a Class B felony, is 10 years. ORS 163.408(2); ORS 161.605(2). It follows that the trial court erred in imposing a 10-year period of post-prison supervision.
Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. The trial court “merged” the first-degree sexual abuse conviction with the conviction for unlawful sexual penetration for purposes of sentencing. On the third-degree sexual abuse conviction, the court placed defendant on probation for 36 months.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 0303-31656; A123849.
Decided: September 28, 2005
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)