Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:21:01Z

Importing text file

New page

''Read the full article for details about the following new cases:''
* Merger - UUV and PSV Merge
* Merger - Theft
* Merger - DCS and DCS w/in 1000 feet
* TPR - Appeals

===Merger - UUV and PSV Merge===

Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle (UUV) and Possession of a Stolen Vehicle (PSV) merge into a single conviction of UUV. UUV requires an element (knowledge that the vehicle is stolen) that is not required by PSV (which only requires "reason to believe" that the vehicle is stolen). However, PSV is subsumed entirely within UUV. The state tried to argue that you can borrow a vehicle without permission without intending to steal it. But the appellate court isn't buying what the state is selling:

<blockquote>

''The state cites no authority, and we are aware of none, for the proposition that a person who "borrows" another person's car, knowing that the other person has not consented to the "borrowing," has not stolen the car merely because the "borrower" intends to return it-and we doubt if the state would subscribe to that theory if a defendant raised it as a defense to PSV.''

</blockquote>

[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A143213.htm ''State v. Noe'']

===Merger - Theft===

Defendant cannot be convicted twice for both stealing a truck and for stealing parts of the same truck. As the AG concedes, those two alternative theories should have merged into a single Aggravated Theft conviction.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A143213.htm ''State v. Noe'']

===Merger - DCS and DCS within 1000 feet of a school===

A single delivery of drugs within 1000 feet of a school, charged as both DCS and DCS within 1000 feet of a school, will merge into a single conviction of DCS within 1000 feet. DCS within 1000 feet is simply an enhanced version of DCS. Per Curiam.
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A141487.htm ''State v. Rodriguez-Gomez'']

===Termination of Parental Rights - Appeals===

Because any ground for termination is sufficient to uphold a TPR, the appellate court does not normally review each ground for sufficiency if any ground is met. However, those other findings can have collateral consequences. Thus, in a rare bit of prospective planning and advice, the court says that:

<blockquote>

''In the future, if a party specifies on appeal the collateral consequences that could result from a disposition that was based on some but not all of the allegations in a petition for termination of parental rights, we will, if appropriate, specify any allegations that play no part in our disposition.''

</blockquote>

''[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A146658.htm DHS v. BJB]''

{{wl-publish: 2011-05-03 21:00:00 -0700 | abassos }}

Blog:Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court 05-04-11 - Revision history

Maintenance script: Importing text file