Defendant appeals his convictions in four consolidated cases and seeks modification of his sentence. He was fоund guilty of one count of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, four counts of delivery of a controlled substаnce and four counts of possession of a controlled substance. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
In case number 85-780-C-1, сonvictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance were “merged” for sentencing purposes into the conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. Defendant was placed on probation for five years with the condition that he serve one year in the county jail. In cases numbered 85-781-C-1, 85-782-C-1, and 85-783-C-1, the court merged, for sentencing purposes only, each conviction for possession of a controlled substance into еach conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. The court placed defendant on probation for five years and included the condition in case number 85-781-C-1 that he serve one year in the county jail. That sentence was to be servеd consecutively to the sentence imposed in case number 85-780-C-1; the probationary sentences were to run concurrеntly.
On appeal, defendant assigns as error the trial court’s failure to merge, not just the sentences, but the convictions in eaсh indictment into the convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. He also contends that the trial court exceeded its authority by imposing two consecutive one-year sentences in the county jail as conditions of probation.
The state concedes that the convictions for conspiracy and possession should have merged with the conviction for delivery but urges us not to consider the merger question at all, because defendant did not raise the issue at trial. Appellate courts will not consider merger questions not raised in the trial court, unless the unpreserved merger question constitutes egregious error.
“* * * In considering the egregiousness of an alleged merger error, some of the factors to be considered are concurrent versus consecutive sentences and the closeness of the question.” State v. Applegate,39 Or App 17 , 25,591 P2d 371 , rev den287 Or 301 (1979).
*421 If the question is not a close one, it is egregious error. Under this standard, we reach the merits of defendant’s argument.
Defendant asserts that the conspiracy conviction should merge into the dеlivery convictions on the ground that, under ORS 161.485(3), he cannot be convicted of both the substantive offense of delivery and of conspiracy. ORS 161.485(3) provides:
“A person shall not be convicted on the basis of the same course of conduct of both the actuаl commission of an offense and an attempt to commit that offense or solicitation of that offense or conspiracy to commit that offense.”
Defendant is correct; his conviction for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substanсe is vacated.
See, e.g., State v. Matt,
He also contends that possession is a lesser included offense of delivery, requiring merger of those convictions. We held in
State v. Finn,
We reach the sаme conclusion here. The trial court erred in failing to vacate defendant’s convictions for possession of a cоntrolled substance.
We next address defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in sentencing him to two consecutive onе-year terms in the county jail as conditions of concurrent five-year terms of probation. ORS 137.540 before amendment provided conditions which could be placed on defendants who were given probationary sentences:
“(2) In addition to the general conditions, the court may impose special conditions of probation for the protection of *422 the public or refоrmation of the offender, or both, including, but not limited to, that the probationer shall:
“(a) Be confined to the county jail for a period not to exceed one year or one-half of the maximum period of confinement that could be imposed for the offense for which the defendant is convicted, whichever is the lesser.”
Although defendant argues that the trial court lacked statutоry authority to impose consecutive sentences, we held in
State v. Walker,
Wе have rejected the argument that jail sentences imposed as a condition of probation must be served at the beginning оf the probationary term in
State v. Walker, supra,
Defendant’s argument that his sentence constitutes exсessive, cruel and unusual punishment, violating Article I, sections 15 and 16, of the Oregon Constitution is without merit.
See State v. Dinkel,
Remanded with instructions to vacate сonvictions for conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance in сase number 85-780-C-1 and to vacate convictions for possession of a controlled substance in cases numbered 85-781-C-1, 85-782-C-1 and 85-783-C-1; otherwise affirmed.