475.900 Crime
category classification; proof of commercial drug offense. (1) A violation of ORS 475.752,
475.786 to 475.894, 475.904 or 475.906 shall be classified as crime category 8
of the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission if:
(a) The violation
constitutes delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance and involves
substantial quantities of a controlled substance. For purposes of this
paragraph, the following amounts constitute substantial quantities of the
following controlled substances:
(A) Five grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;
(B) Five grams or
more or 25 or more user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of fentanyl, or any substituted derivative of fentanyl as defined by the
rules of the State Board of Pharmacy;
(C) Ten grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine;
(D) Ten grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine, its salts, isomers or salts of its isomers;
(E) Two hundred
or more user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
lysergic acid diethylamide;
(F) Sixty grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of psilocybin
or psilocin; or
(G) Five grams or
more or 25 or more pills, tablets or capsules of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of:
(i)
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine;
(ii)
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine; or
(iii)
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylampheta-
mine.
(b) The violation
constitutes possession, delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance and
the possession, delivery or manufacture is a commercial drug offense. A
possession, delivery or manufacture is a commercial drug offense for purposes
of this subsection if it is accompanied by at least three of the following
factors:
(A) The delivery
was of heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, lysergic acid diethylamide,
psilocybin or psilocin and was for consideration;
(B) The offender
was in possession of $300 or more in cash;
(C) The offender
was unlawfully in possession of a firearm or other weapon as described in ORS
166.270 (2), or the offender used, attempted to use or threatened to use a
deadly or dangerous weapon as defined in ORS 161.015, or the offender was in
possession of a firearm or other deadly or dangerous weapon as defined in ORS
161.015 for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance
offense;
(D) The offender
was in possession of materials being used for the packaging of controlled
substances such as scales, wrapping or foil, other than the material being used
to contain the substance that is the subject of the offense;
(E) The offender
was in possession of drug transaction records or customer lists;
(F) The offender
was in possession of stolen property;
(G) Modification
of structures by painting, wiring, plumbing or lighting to facilitate a
controlled substance offense;
(H) The offender
was in possession of manufacturing paraphernalia, including recipes, precursor
chemicals, laboratory equipment, lighting, ventilating or power generating
equipment;
(I) The offender
was using public lands for the manufacture of controlled substances;
(J) The offender
had constructed fortifications or had taken security measures with the
potential of injuring persons; or
(K) The offender
was in possession of controlled substances in an amount greater than:
(i) Three grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;
(ii) Three grams
or more or 15 or more user units of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of fentanyl, or any substituted derivative of fentanyl as
defined by the rules of the State Board of Pharmacy;
(iii) Eight grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine;
(iv) Eight grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine;
(v) Twenty or
more user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
lysergic acid diethylamide;
(vi) Ten grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of psilocybin or
psilocin; or
(vii) Four grams
or more or 20 or more pills, tablets or capsules of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of:
(I)
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine;
(II)
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine; or
(III)
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylampheta-
mine.
(c) The violation
constitutes a violation of ORS 475.788, 475.792, 475.848, 475.852, 475.868,
475.872, 475.878, 475.882, 475.888, 475.892 or 475.904.
(d) The violation
constitutes manufacturing methamphetamine and the manufacturing consists of:
(A) A chemical
reaction involving one or more precursor substances for the purpose of
manufacturing methamphetamine; or
(B) Grinding,
soaking or otherwise breaking down a precursor substance for the purpose of
manufacturing methamphetamine.
(e) The violation
constitutes a violation of ORS 475.906 (1) or (2) that is not described in ORS
475.907.
(2) A violation
of ORS 475.752 or 475.786 to 475.894 shall be classified as crime category 7 of
the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission if the
violation constitutes delivery for consideration of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl,
methamphetamine or 3,4-methylenedioxyampheta-
mine,
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine and:
(a) The person
knows, or reasonably should have known, that the delivery is occurring within
500 feet of the real property comprising a treatment facility;
(b) The person
knows, or reasonably should have known, that the delivery is occurring within
500 feet of the real property comprising a temporary residence shelter; or
(c) The delivery
occurs within 30 feet of the real property comprising a public park.
(3) A violation
of ORS 475.752 or 475.786 to 475.894 shall be classified as crime category 6 of
the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission if:
(a) The violation
constitutes delivery of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine or
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylampheta mine and is for consideration.
(b) The violation
constitutes possession of substantial quantities of a controlled substance. For
purposes of this paragraph, the following amounts constitute substantial
quantities of the following controlled substances:
(A) Five grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;
(B) Five grams or
more or 25 or more user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of fentanyl, or any substituted derivative of fentanyl as defined by the
rules of the State Board of Pharmacy;
(C) Ten grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine;
(D) Ten grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine;
(E) Two hundred
or more user units of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
lysergic acid diethylamide;
(F) Sixty grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of psilocybin
or psilocin; or
(G) Five grams or
more or 25 or more pills, tablets or capsules of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of:
(i)
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine;
(ii)
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine; or
(iii)
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylampheta-
mine.
(4) A violation
of ORS 475.752 or 475.786 to 475.894 shall be classified as crime category 5 of
the sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission if the
violation constitutes delivery of heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine or
3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine and:
(a) The person
knows, or reasonably should have known, that the delivery is occurring within
500 feet of the real property comprising a treatment facility;
(b) The person
knows, or reasonably should have known, that the delivery is occurring within
500 feet of the real property comprising a temporary residence shelter; or
(c) The delivery
occurs within 30 feet of the real property comprising a public park.
(5) Any felony
violation of ORS 475.752 or 475.786 to 475.894 not contained in subsections (1)
to (4) of this section shall be classified as crime category 4 of the
sentencing guidelines grid of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission if the
violation involves delivery or manufacture of a controlled substance.
(6) In order to
prove a commercial drug offense, the state shall plead in the accusatory
instrument sufficient factors of a commercial drug offense under subsection (1)
of this section. The state has the burden of proving each factor beyond a
reasonable doubt.
(7) As used in
this section:
(a) “Mixture or
substance” means any mixture or substance, whether or not the mixture or
substance is in an ingestible or marketable form at the time of the offense.
(b) “Public park”
means a park operated by the state, a county, a city or a park and recreation
district.
(c) “Temporary
residence shelter” means a building that provides shelter on a temporary basis
for individuals and families who lack permanent housing.
(d) “Treatment
facility” has the meaning given that term in ORS 430.306. [Formerly 475.996;
2007 c.494 §1; 2013 c.649 §1; 2015 c.614 §126; 2017 c.21 §28; 2021 c.591 §40;
2023 c.9 §41; 2023 c.413 §2; 2024 c.70 §25; 2025 c.532 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case:
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
· cites it 36× “The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 39× “In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 44× “005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 41× “In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
· cites it 44× “**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
State v. Cam, 296 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 9× “5 In defendant’s view, the structure of ORS 475.900 shows that the enhancement “subfactors” set out in paragraphs (b)(K)(i) to (viii) serve to enhance only the possession, delivery or manufacture charges for the particular named substances.”
State v. Wesley, 533 P.3d 786 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “ORS 475.900; see State v. Unger, 276 Or App 445, 448 , 368 P3d 37 (2016) (so explaining).”
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “900(1)(c), or unlawful delivery of controlled substance (substantial quantity), ORS 475.900(1)(a), would 866 State v. Hubbell be classified as an 8-I on the sentencing grid, which carries a presumptive prison term of 16 to 18 months, unless cer- tain findings can be made…”
State v. Unger, 368 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “The state indicted defendant for several drug-related crimes, including the counts at issue here, Count 3 and Count 4, which were alleged to have been committed as “part of the same act or transaction.”
State v. Mays, 346 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “” Here, the indictment charged that the offense was a commercial drug offense because defendant possessed $300 or more in cash, ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(B); a firearm for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance offense, ORS 475.”
State v. Huff, 291 P.3d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “894, both as commercial drug offenses, ORS 475.900(l)(b). 1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable…”
State v. Scott, 388 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Based on that evidence, defendant was charged by indictment with, among other things, one count of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Count 2). Both counts alleged additional facts—commonly referred to as “subcategory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1) — 3 cases
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“900(1)(c), or unlawful delivery of controlled substance (substantial quantity), ORS 475.900(1)(a), would 866 State v. Hubbell be classified as an 8-I on the sentencing grid, which carries a presumptive prison term of 16 to 18 months, unless cer- tain findings can be made…”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(a)(A) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(a)(C) — 2 cases
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(a)(D) — 5 cases
State v. Wesley, 533 P.3d 786 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 475.900; see State v. Unger, 276 Or App 445, 448 , 368 P3d 37 (2016) (so explaining).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b) — 8 cases
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Wesley, 533 P.3d 786 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“ORS 475.900; see State v. Unger, 276 Or App 445, 448 , 368 P3d 37 (2016) (so explaining).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(A) — 4 cases
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(C) — 1 case
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(D) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(E) — 2 cases
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(I) — 1 case
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(J) — 1 case
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(K) — 1 case
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(b)(K)(iii) — 1 case
State v. Scott, 388 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Based on that evidence, defendant was charged by indictment with, among other things, one count of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Count 2). Both counts alleged additional facts—commonly referred to as “subcategory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Hubbell, 500 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“900(1)(c), or unlawful delivery of controlled substance (substantial quantity), ORS 475.900(1)(a), would 866 State v. Hubbell be classified as an 8-I on the sentencing grid, which carries a presumptive prison term of 16 to 18 months, unless cer- tain findings can be made…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(2)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(3) — 2 cases
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(3)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Villagomez, 412 P.3d 183 (Or. 2018).
“The state also alleged another fact, independent of the CDO factors, that, if proved, would result in an enhanced sentence under ORS 475.900 (1)(a)(C). The state alleged that defendant had delivered a "substantial quantity" of methamphetamine.”
State v. Unger, 368 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“The state indicted defendant for several drug-related crimes, including the counts at issue here, Count 3 and Count 4, which were alleged to have been committed as “part of the same act or transaction.”
State v. Stewart, 413 P.3d 959 (Or. 2018).
“**640 In this criminal case, we conclude that, to prove that a delivery "is for consideration" under ORS 475.900 (2)(a) and that an enhanced sentence is therefore merited, the state is required to offer evidence that a defendant either entered into an agreement to sell or…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(4) — 1 case
State v. Scott, 388 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Based on that evidence, defendant was charged by indictment with, among other things, one count of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Count 2). Both counts alleged additional facts—commonly referred to as “subcategory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Unger, 368 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“The state indicted defendant for several drug-related crimes, including the counts at issue here, Count 3 and Count 4, which were alleged to have been committed as “part of the same act or transaction.”
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
State v. Scott, 388 P.3d 1148 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“Based on that evidence, defendant was charged by indictment with, among other things, one count of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Count 2). Both counts alleged additional facts—commonly referred to as “subcategory…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Unger, 368 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“The state indicted defendant for several drug-related crimes, including the counts at issue here, Count 3 and Count 4, which were alleged to have been committed as “part of the same act or transaction.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(a)(C) — 1 case
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b) — 9 cases
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
State v. Cam, 296 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“5 In defendant’s view, the structure of ORS 475.900 shows that the enhancement “subfactors” set out in paragraphs (b)(K)(i) to (viii) serve to enhance only the possession, delivery or manufacture charges for the particular named substances.”
State v. Huff, 291 P.3d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“894, both as commercial drug offenses, ORS 475.900(l)(b). 1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable…”
State v. Mays, 346 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Here, the indictment charged that the offense was a commercial drug offense because defendant possessed $300 or more in cash, ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(B); a firearm for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance offense, ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(A) — 3 cases
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(B) — 3 cases
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Huff, 291 P.3d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“894, both as commercial drug offenses, ORS 475.900(l)(b). 1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(C) — 1 case
State v. Mays, 346 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Here, the indictment charged that the offense was a commercial drug offense because defendant possessed $300 or more in cash, ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(B); a firearm for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance offense, ORS 475.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(D) — 3 cases
State v. Cam, 296 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“5 In defendant’s view, the structure of ORS 475.900 shows that the enhancement “subfactors” set out in paragraphs (b)(K)(i) to (viii) serve to enhance only the possession, delivery or manufacture charges for the particular named substances.”
State v. Mays, 346 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Here, the indictment charged that the offense was a commercial drug offense because defendant possessed $300 or more in cash, ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(B); a firearm for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance offense, ORS 475.”
State v. Huff, 291 P.3d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“894, both as commercial drug offenses, ORS 475.900(l)(b). 1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(E) — 5 cases
State v. Rankins, 382 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In order to establish that an offense is a commercial drug offense, the state must prove that the offense was accompanied by at least three of the 11 factors listed in the commercial drug offense statute, ORS 475.900 (l)(b). In this case, one of the three factors that the state…”
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
State v. Mays, 346 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“” Here, the indictment charged that the offense was a commercial drug offense because defendant possessed $300 or more in cash, ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(B); a firearm for the purpose of using it in connection with a controlled substance offense, ORS 475.”
State v. Huff, 291 P.3d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“894, both as commercial drug offenses, ORS 475.900(l)(b). 1 He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his residence on the ground that the affidavit in support of the warrant was insufficient to establish probable…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(K) — 1 case
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.900(l)(b)(K)(iii) — 3 cases
State v. Stewart, 386 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In Villagomez , we held that the state failed to prove that a delivery “was for consideration” within the meaning of a different subsection of the same statute—ORS 475.900 (l)(b)(A)—because it did not show, at a minimum, that the defendant had entered into an agreement to…”
State v. Cam, 296 P.3d 578 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“5 In defendant’s view, the structure of ORS 475.900 shows that the enhancement “subfactors” set out in paragraphs (b)(K)(i) to (viii) serve to enhance only the possession, delivery or manufacture charges for the particular named substances.”
State v. Villagomez, 380 P.3d 1150 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“005(8) (providing that “delivery” includes “constructive” or “attempted” transfers of drugs) and Boyd, “delivery * * * for consideration” encompasses any attempted transfer where the defendant intends to transfer drugs for “money, goods, or services.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.