<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Blog%3ACase_Reviews%2FOregon_Appellate_Court_October_10%2C_2012</id>
		<title>Blog:Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court October 10, 2012 - Revision history</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Blog%3ACase_Reviews%2FOregon_Appellate_Court_October_10%2C_2012"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_October_10,_2012&amp;action=history"/>
		<updated>2026-04-04T10:09:07Z</updated>
		<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.19.24</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_October_10,_2012&amp;diff=7806&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>Maintenance script: Importing text file</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://libraryofdefense.ocdla.org/index.php?title=Blog:Case_Reviews/Oregon_Appellate_Court_October_10,_2012&amp;diff=7806&amp;oldid=prev"/>
				<updated>2012-12-21T00:21:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Importing text file&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;'''Overtime Payments to State Employees Are Not a Recoverable Cost of Prosecution'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Unforeseeable and unbudgeted&amp;quot; salary-related payments to state employees are not a &amp;quot;specially incurred&amp;quot; cost of prosecution recoverable under ORS 161.665(1). Here, overtime police expenditures for guarding defendant in the hospital were not recoverable. [http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/docs/A145332.pdf State v. Kuehner], __ Or App __ (2012).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''PCR &amp;amp;gt; Inadequate Advice about Stipulated Facts Trial'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A defense attorney's advice is constitutionally deficient when it inaccurately informs client that a stipulated facts trial will preserve an issue for appeal that is, instead, unpreserved. Here, defendant's attorney told him that a stipulated facts trial on his DUII would preserve appeal on the issue of whether he was eligible for diversion. However, defendant's stipulation to the victim's injury made defendant ineligible for diversion under ORS 813.215(1)(j)(B).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/docs/A144309.pdf Koch v. State], __ Or App __ (2012).&lt;br /&gt;
{{wl-publish: 2012-10-10 11:29:04 -0700 | sclark }}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Maintenance script</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>