Oregon Appellate Ct. - Nov. 19, 2014
by: Frangieringer and Abassos • November 19, 2014 • no comments
Sentencing – Conduct from One Event That Led To the Same Harm Should Be Sentenced Concurrently
It is plain error to impose consecutive sentences for offenses arising from a “continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct.” Here, the trial judge ordered defendant to serve a consecutive sentence on a count of attempted assault and a count of attempted assault of a police officer. Because the two counts stemmed from the same incident and there was no indication of defendant’s willingness to commit an additional offense, or cause a greater or “qualitatively different loss” to the complainant, the trial court was in plain error to not have defendant serve his sentence on both charges concurrently.
State v. Welsh, 266 Or App 8 (2014).
Commitment Hearings – Courts Must Advise Defendant of Rights Even If Represented By Counsel Courts must advise defendants who have a potential mental illness or cognitive disability of the provisions contained in ORS 461.100(1) even if the person is represented by counsel. Here, the trial court judge failed to advise appellant of the possible results of a commitment hearing, her right to subpoena counsel, and her right to counsel. Even if appellant was advised of her rights by her attorney, the court must still comply with its statutory responsibilities and advise the allegedly mentally ill person of the rights contained in ORS 461.100(1).
State v. K.M., 266 Or App 1 (2014).
Restricted Weapons – Ninja Climbing Claws Are Not Metal Knuckles
Ninja climbing claws are not metal knuckles for the purposes of felon in possession of a restricted weapon. Here, defendant possessed an item that was designed to strap on to the hand with spikes facing outward from the palm to assist in climbing. They were not designed, unlike metal knuckles, to protect the knuckles and increase the damage of a punch. Because the design of the climbing claws was inconsistent with the characteristics of metal knuckles and there was a demonstrable purpose behind the climbing claws that metal knuckles lack, i.e. climbing, the ninja climbing claws could not be considered metal knuckles under the felon in possession of a restricted weapon statute.
State v. Behee, 266 Or App 77 (2014).
