State v. Steltz
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: October 30, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ADAM TROY STELTZ, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 041136208 A149723 Julie E. Frantz, Judge. Submitted on May 16, 2013. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Zachary Lovett Mazer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Erin C. Lagesen, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. J:\259ORAPP\WEB FILES\Slip Ops for Web\AS25\Week One\A149723.docx - 10/28/2013 1 PER CURIAM 2 In 2004, defendant entered a no-contest plea to one count of attempted first- 3 degree rape and was given a stipulated downward-departure sentence of 10 years of 4 supervised probation. The trial court revoked that probation in 2011 based on defendant's 5 conviction on new criminal charges in Marion County. Those convictions are the subject 6 of defendant's appeal in State v. Steltz (A149320), ___ Or App ___, ___ P3d ___ (decided 7 this date). 8 9 Here, defendant argues that, if we vacate his 2011 convictions from Marion County, we "should also vacate the judgment of revocation in this case" and remand for 10 reconsideration. In Steltz, we did not vacate defendant's convictions and remand for a 11 new trial, as he had urged. Instead, we accepted only one of defendant's arguments--that 12 the Marion County court erred by failing to merge some of his convictions into others. 13 Accordingly, we reversed and remanded with instructions that the court merge certain 14 convictions. Defendant does not argue that merger of some of the Marion County 15 convictions, standing alone, would entitle him to reconsideration of the probation- 16 revocation decision in this case. Rather, his argument in this case is pinned solely on his 17 hope that we would vacate all of his Marion County convictions in Steltz. Because 18 defendant did not obtain that result in Steltz, his appeal in this case presents no basis for 19 reversal of the order revoking his probation on his 2004 conviction. 20 Affirmed. 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
