Written by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCINGSentencing - CDO factors - delivery for consideration
Evidence of Boyd delivery is not sufficient to prove the CDO factor of “delivery for consideration.”
The court considered text, context, and legislative history to determine that the phrase “for consideration” in ORS 475.900(1)(b) refers to a genuine executed delivery for consideration, not an attempted or constructive delivery. C.f. State v. Boyd, 92 Or App 51, 54, rev den, 307 Or 77 (1988). Because the evidence did not prove a genuine delivery for consideration, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s MJOA as to that factor. Remanded for resentencing.
State v. Villagomez, 362 Or 390 (2018) (Walters, J.)
When a judgment creating a wardship in favor of DHS issues, the parent appeals, and the wardship is terminated during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal is not necessarily moot.
DHS obtained a wardship of child, a ten-year-old on the autism spectrum, based on proof that mother was neglecting child’s basic needs and was risking child’s safety by permitting contact with mother’s boyfriend, a convicted sex offender. Child remained in mother’s custody pursuant to a safety plan. Mother appealed. While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing the petition. The court found that mother had cooperated with DHS, benefited from DHS’s intervention, and was a minimally-adequate parent. The parties disputed the future effect of the findings supporting the dependency judgment. The court decided that, under the facts of this case and in light of the favorable findings made in connection with the dismissal, the future effect would be minimal. Accordingly, the court remanded to the Court of Appeals to dismiss for mootness.
DHS v. A.B. 362 Or 412 (2018) (Walters, J.)