ENTRY FORM

CALENDAR STATUS: Active
SC Number:
S061149
CA Number:
Case Title:
State of Oregon v. Gregory Allen Bowen
Date:
05/01/2014
Time:
01:30 PM
Location:
Supreme Court Case 3
Attorneys:
Steven H. Gorham, Robin A Jones and Peter Gartlan on behalf of Gregory Allen Bowen
Timothy A. Sylwester on behalf of State of Oregon
Comments:
Statement of Issues:
State of Oregon v. Gregory Allen Bowen (S061149) (on automatic direct review of the judgment of conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Curry County Circuit Court).

This case comes before the Oregon Supreme Court on automatic and direct review of a judgment of conviction and sentence of death following defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated murder. This is the third automatic review involving defendant. Following this court’s remand in 2006, the trial court held a hearing at which it entered a corrected judgment that again imposed the death sentence. In 2012, the Supreme Court again remanded to the circuit court, directing entry of a new corrected judgment that separately enumerated the aggravating factors underlying the merged aggravated murder convictions. The court otherwise affirmed the convictions and sentence of death. Following that remand, the trial court held a hearing at which it denied two defense motions; the court then entered a corrected judgment that imposed a sentence of death and separately enumerated the aggravating factors underlying the merged aggravated murder convictions.

Defendant raises two assignments of error relating to his motions at the proceedings on remand. Those assignments of error present the following questions:

(1) When an appellate court reverses and remands for the trial court to merge guilty verdicts in a judgment that includes sentences on convictions for felony offenses, must the court on remand resentence the defendant pursuant to ORS 138.222(5)?

(2) Was defendant entitled to appear personally for allocution under the circumstances presented in this case?

The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating:


Last Revised: 03/21/2014