Crime category classification
- proof of commercial drug offense
Source:
Section 475.900 — Crime category classification; proof of commercial drug offense, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors475.html
.
Notes of Decisions
Where defendant was indicted under unconstitutionally vague crime category statute, then reindicted under clarified statute, ex post facto clause did not prohibit conviction. State v. Perez, 119 Or App 436, 851 P2d 617 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Use of term “substantial quantity” in both count for delivery and count for possession did not serve notice on defendant that quantity alleged in possession count exceeded enhanced category threshold for possession. State v. Griffen, 131 Or App 79, 883 P2d 1315 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
“Public lands” refers to land owned by any unit of government. State v. Holloway, 138 Or App 260, 908 P2d 324 (1995)
Violation of multiple offense subcategories in committing same act does not create multiple offenses. State v. Wright, 150 Or App 159, 945 P2d 1083 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Proof that delivery or manufacture of controlled substance “involves” substantial quantities of controlled substance is not established by merely showing that person involved in delivery or manufacture also possesses substantial quantities of controlled substance. State v. Paetehr, 169 Or App 157, 7 P3d 708 (2000)
Defendant took “security measures with potential of injuring persons” when defendant set up electronic surveillance system and utilized armed guard. State v. Moore, 172 Or App 371, 19 P3d 911 (2001), Sup Ct review denied
For purposes of sentence enhancement, threshold quantity of “mixture or substance” containing detectable amount of methamphetamine must be in marketable form. State v. Slovik, 188 Or App 263, 71 P3d 159 (2003)
Possession of any controlled substance listed in statute in quantity specified in statute serves as enhancement factor for any possession offense. State v. Cam, 255 Or App 1, 296 P3d 578 (2013), Sup Ct review denied
As used in this section, “drug transaction records” refers to intentionally retained notations of events; therefore, defendant’s text messages alone, without evidence to support finding that defendant retained text messages for record-keeping purposes, are not drug transaction records. State v. Rankins, 280 Or App 673, 382 P3d 530 (2016)
Where state did not show that defendant had entered into agreement for sale of methamphetamine in his possession or that defendant had otherwise received payment or promise of payment, state failed to prove that delivery “was for consideration” as used in subsection (1)(b)(A) of this section. State v. Villagomez, 281 Or App 29, 380 P3d 1150 (2016), aff’d 362 Or 390, 412 P3d 183 (2018)
Where defendant mentioned needing to make money, attempted to solicit sexual favors from third party in exchange for methamphetamine and separated methamphetamine into multiple bags, but did not sell or agree to sell methamphetamine, defendant did not merit enhanced sentence because proof that delivery “is for consideration” requires evidence that defendant entered into agreement to sell, or completed sale of, methamphetamine. State v. Stewart, 362 Or 638, 413 P3d 959 (2018)