Oregon Appellate Court, December 9, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • December 15, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> PRESERVATION - Invited error </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions''' Revocation sentence...") |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
'''DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Manifest necessity''' | '''DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Manifest necessity''' | ||
| − | Jeopardy represented by stipulated-facts trial was 'terminated' on state's motion, permitting retrial, because defendant did not tender a written waiver of jury trial. Affirmed. | + | Jeopardy represented by stipulated-facts trial was 'terminated' on state's motion, permitting retrial, because defendant did not tender a written waiver of jury trial and was thus never in jeopardy. Affirmed. |
| − | The parties reached a settlement including a stipulated-facts trial, but, | + | The parties reached a settlement including a stipulated-facts trial, but defendant failed to submit a written waiver of jury trial. Accordingly, when a dispute arose over the terms of the settlement and the court declared a mistrial, defendant had never been in jeopardy and constitutional double-jeopardy did not prevent a mistrial. The court declined to consider, as unpreserved, defendant's statutory argument. |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163419 State v. Dykstra] 307 Or App 766 (December 9, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Fun) |
| − | ''' | + | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety''' |
| − | + | Bulge under defendant's coat that could have been a firearm was not a basis for an officer-safety search without evidence that defendant was a threat. Reversed. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | The court rejected defendant's argument that, once he was handcuffed, he no longer presented a threat and therefore no further search was necessary. Rather, the court analyzed the handcuffing and the search as a unitary police action. |
| + | |||
| + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164732 State v. Bailey] 307 Or App 782 (December 9, 2020) (DeHoog) (Marion County, Leith) | ||
'''PRESERVATION - Invited error''' | '''PRESERVATION - Invited error''' | ||
Revision as of 17:08, December 15, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SENTENCING - Consecutive probation sanctions
Revocation sentences for a single supervision violation must be concurrent. Reversed.
The court also held that, while stipulated sentences are not reviewable, an agreement that each party can argue for a sentence is not a 'stipulation' under that rule.
State v. Rusen 307 Or App 759 (December 9, 2020) (Lagesen) (Linn County, McHill)
STALKING AND FAPA ORDERS - Sufficiency
Respondent's false allegations directed against petitioner did not give rise to well-founded apprehension for petitioner's personal safety. Reversed.
B.M. v. Deaton 307 Or App 763 (December 9, 2020) (Lagesen) (Douglas County, Simmons)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Manifest necessity
Jeopardy represented by stipulated-facts trial was 'terminated' on state's motion, permitting retrial, because defendant did not tender a written waiver of jury trial and was thus never in jeopardy. Affirmed.
The parties reached a settlement including a stipulated-facts trial, but defendant failed to submit a written waiver of jury trial. Accordingly, when a dispute arose over the terms of the settlement and the court declared a mistrial, defendant had never been in jeopardy and constitutional double-jeopardy did not prevent a mistrial. The court declined to consider, as unpreserved, defendant's statutory argument.
State v. Dykstra 307 Or App 766 (December 9, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Fun)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Officer safety
Bulge under defendant's coat that could have been a firearm was not a basis for an officer-safety search without evidence that defendant was a threat. Reversed.
The court rejected defendant's argument that, once he was handcuffed, he no longer presented a threat and therefore no further search was necessary. Rather, the court analyzed the handcuffing and the search as a unitary police action.
State v. Bailey 307 Or App 782 (December 9, 2020) (DeHoog) (Marion County, Leith)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
PRESERVATION - Invited error
Trial counsel's express waiver of restitution objection precluded plain-error review. Affirmed.
State v. XXX 307 Or App XXX (December 9, 2020) (XXX) (XXX County, XXX)
