Oregon Appellate Court, February 5, 2020
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Rankin Johnson • February 11, 2020 • no comments
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | SELF-INCRIMINATION - Promises of lenience | |
| − | + | SENTENCING - Probation conditions | |
| + | RESTITUTION - Time limits | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
'''SELF-INCRIMINATION - Promises of lenience''' | '''SELF-INCRIMINATION - Promises of lenience''' | ||
| − | Officer's statement that, if defendant talked to him | + | Officer's statement that, if defendant talked to him the officer could talk to the DA and maybe the charges would be dismissed, was an impermissible inducement. Reversed and remanded. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163661 State v. Simmons] 302 Or App 133 (February 5, 2020) (Lagesen) (Washington County, Erwin) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163661 State v. Simmons] 302 Or App 133 (February 5, 2020) (Lagesen) (Washington County, Erwin) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
Trial court erred in imposing a probation condition forbidding marijuana use in the written judgment when that condition was not discussed at sentencing. Reversed and remanded. | Trial court erred in imposing a probation condition forbidding marijuana use in the written judgment when that condition was not discussed at sentencing. Reversed and remanded. | ||
| − | The Court of Appeals declined to consider whether the court plainly erred by imposing conditions relating to alcohol use; the court apparently believed that defendant's mental health warranted those conditions. | + | The Court of Appeals declined to consider whether the court plainly erred by imposing conditions relating to alcohol use; the trial court apparently believed that defendant's mental health warranted those conditions. |
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168791 State v. Worthey] 302 Or App 140 (February 5, 2020) (Shorr) (Lincoln County, Bachart) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168791 State v. Worthey] 302 Or App 140 (February 5, 2020) (Shorr) (Lincoln County, Bachart) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''RESTITUTION - Time limits''' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Trial court did not plainly err by setting hearing requested more than 90 days after sentencing. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | In setting the late hearing, the court did not expressly follow the statutory procedure to do so. | |
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A166485 State v. Gallegos] 302 Or App 145 (February 5, 2020) (Powers) (Washington County, Butterfield) |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2020-02-11 18:59:59 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Latest revision as of 19:59, February 12, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SELF-INCRIMINATION - Promises of lenience
Officer's statement that, if defendant talked to him the officer could talk to the DA and maybe the charges would be dismissed, was an impermissible inducement. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Simmons 302 Or App 133 (February 5, 2020) (Lagesen) (Washington County, Erwin)
SENTENCING - Probation conditions
Trial court erred in imposing a probation condition forbidding marijuana use in the written judgment when that condition was not discussed at sentencing. Reversed and remanded.
The Court of Appeals declined to consider whether the court plainly erred by imposing conditions relating to alcohol use; the trial court apparently believed that defendant's mental health warranted those conditions.
State v. Worthey 302 Or App 140 (February 5, 2020) (Shorr) (Lincoln County, Bachart)
RESTITUTION - Time limits
Trial court did not plainly err by setting hearing requested more than 90 days after sentencing. Affirmed.
In setting the late hearing, the court did not expressly follow the statutory procedure to do so.
State v. Gallegos 302 Or App 145 (February 5, 2020) (Powers) (Washington County, Butterfield)
