Oregon Appellate Court, January 15, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • January 24, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> CIVIL COMMITMENT - Willingness to participate in treatment CONTEMPT - Review and collateral attack FINES, FEES, AND COSTS - Collection and enforcement DIVERS...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | TRIAL PROCEDURE - Subpoena enforcement | |
| − | + | POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Summary judgment elements | |
| − | + | POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Successive petitions | |
| − | + | SENTENCING - Terms of probation | |
| + | RESTITUTION - Unjust enrichment | ||
| + | HABEAS CORPUS - Dismissal on court's own motion | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
State's appeal. Victim is not a party, such that his failure to appear when subpoenaed is a basis for dismissal. Reversed and remanded. | State's appeal. Victim is not a party, such that his failure to appear when subpoenaed is a basis for dismissal. Reversed and remanded. | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A170384 State v. Lorenzo] 301 Or App 713 (January 15, 2020) (DeVore) (Clackamas County, Norby) |
| − | ''' | + | '''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Summary judgment elements''' |
| − | + | Counsel's failure to call a witness to buttress an impeached expert witness was not moot. Reversed. | |
| − | + | At the underlying criminal trial petitioner offered testimony of an expert to support his theory that he was too intoxicated to form intent, and used retrograde extrapolation to estimate petitioner's BAC. The state impeached the expert by pointing out that defendant might have drunk more after the events at issue. | |
| + | In post-conviction, petitioner argued that counsel had been ineffective in failing to call petitioner's wife, who would have testified that petitioner had not drunk any additional alcohol. The post-conviction court granted summary judgment to the state. In reversing, the Court of Appeals rejected the trial court's holding that the evidence was "moot" and the state's argument that the wife's testimony was cumulative. | ||
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168272 Yann v. Bowser] 301 Or App 720 (January 15, 2020) (Lagesen) (Umatilla County, Pratt) | |
| − | + | '''POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Successive petitions''' | |
| − | + | Petitioner was not permitted to raise, in a subsequent petition, claims that counsel could have raised in the initial petition, regardless of whether counsel erred. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A162169 Walton v. Myrick] 301 Or App 740 (January 15, 2020) (Hadlock) (Umatilla County, Pratt) | |
| − | + | '''SENTENCING - Terms of probation''' | |
| − | + | Probation conditions relating to alcohol use not appropriate following conviction for unlawful use of a motor vehicle and menacing. Reversed and remanded. | |
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168355 State v. Hullinger] 301 Or App 746 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Lincoln County, Sanders) | |
| − | + | '''RESTITUTION - Unjust enrichment''' | |
| − | + | Where glasses cost $933 several years ago, most of which was paid by insurance, but the victim no longer had insurance to pay for replacements, $979 in restitution for breaking glasses would not unjustly enrich the victim. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A167682 State v. D.S.] 301 Or App 753 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Multnomah County, Holmes Hehn) | |
| − | + | '''HABEAS CORPUS - Dismissal on court's own motion''' | |
| − | + | Although the court erred by failing to provide reasons for its dismissal, the error was harmless when the petition failed to state a claim. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A168366 Johnson v. Doe] 301 Or App 756 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Washington County, Erwin) | |
| − | + | {{wl-publish: 2020-01-24 10:47:37 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Latest revision as of 11:47, January 25, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
TRIAL PROCEDURE - Subpoena enforcement
State's appeal. Victim is not a party, such that his failure to appear when subpoenaed is a basis for dismissal. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Lorenzo 301 Or App 713 (January 15, 2020) (DeVore) (Clackamas County, Norby)
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Summary judgment elements
Counsel's failure to call a witness to buttress an impeached expert witness was not moot. Reversed.
At the underlying criminal trial petitioner offered testimony of an expert to support his theory that he was too intoxicated to form intent, and used retrograde extrapolation to estimate petitioner's BAC. The state impeached the expert by pointing out that defendant might have drunk more after the events at issue. In post-conviction, petitioner argued that counsel had been ineffective in failing to call petitioner's wife, who would have testified that petitioner had not drunk any additional alcohol. The post-conviction court granted summary judgment to the state. In reversing, the Court of Appeals rejected the trial court's holding that the evidence was "moot" and the state's argument that the wife's testimony was cumulative.
Yann v. Bowser 301 Or App 720 (January 15, 2020) (Lagesen) (Umatilla County, Pratt)
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Successive petitions
Petitioner was not permitted to raise, in a subsequent petition, claims that counsel could have raised in the initial petition, regardless of whether counsel erred. Affirmed.
Walton v. Myrick 301 Or App 740 (January 15, 2020) (Hadlock) (Umatilla County, Pratt)
SENTENCING - Terms of probation
Probation conditions relating to alcohol use not appropriate following conviction for unlawful use of a motor vehicle and menacing. Reversed and remanded.
State v. Hullinger 301 Or App 746 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Lincoln County, Sanders)
RESTITUTION - Unjust enrichment
Where glasses cost $933 several years ago, most of which was paid by insurance, but the victim no longer had insurance to pay for replacements, $979 in restitution for breaking glasses would not unjustly enrich the victim. Affirmed.
State v. D.S. 301 Or App 753 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Multnomah County, Holmes Hehn)
HABEAS CORPUS - Dismissal on court's own motion
Although the court erred by failing to provide reasons for its dismissal, the error was harmless when the petition failed to state a claim. Affirmed.
Johnson v. Doe 301 Or App 756 (January 15, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Washington County, Erwin)
