|
|
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <summary hidden> | | <summary hidden> |
− | SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions | + | SENTENCING - Disproportionate punishment |
− | | + | RIGHT TO PRESENCE AT TRIAL - Waiver |
− | | + | PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE - Continuances |
| + | EVIDENCE - Foundation for expert opinion |
| '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' |
| | | |
Line 11: |
Line 12: |
| The court noted that the teacher had previously been suspended by the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission for having inappropriate relations with students. | | The court noted that the teacher had previously been suspended by the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission for having inappropriate relations with students. |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170286 State v. Buckendahl] 308 Or App 125 (December 23, 2020) (Lagesen) (Multnomah County, Skye) |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | | + | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | |
− | | + | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | '''RIGHT TO PRESENCE AT TRIAL - Waiver''' |
| | | |
| + | Term in written judgment that failure to appear at restitution hearing served as waiver of objections was not effective because it was not announced in open court. Reversed. |
| | | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions'''
| + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A171114 State v. Sidener] 308 Or App 155 (December 23, 2020) (Per curiam) (Washington County, Sims) |
| | | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | '''PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE - Continuances''' |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
| + | Trial court erred in denying continuance as a result of surprise unavailability of defendant's expert. Reversed. |
| | | |
| + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170210 State v. Read] 308 Or App 164 (December 23, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Washington County, Wipper and Bailey) |
| | | |
− | '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions''' | + | '''EVIDENCE - Foundation for expert opinion''' |
| | | |
− | Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
| + | Drug test on which pediatrician relied to form opinion was not admissible as substantive evidence. Reversed. |
| | | |
− | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/XXX State v. XXX] 308 Or App XXX (December 23, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX) | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170252 State v. Prose] 308 Or App 167 (December 23, 2020) (Per curiam) (Washington County, Sims) |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2021-02-24 12:51:06 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} |