Oregon Appellate Court, January 2, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • January 3, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> RESTITUTION - Expenses on behalf of minor child SENTENCING - Merger </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''CIVIL COMMITMENT - Willingness...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | CIVIL COMMITMENT - Willingness to participate in treatment | |
| − | + | CONTEMPT - Review and collateral attack | |
| + | FINES, FEES, AND COSTS - Collection and enforcement | ||
| + | DIVERSION - Termination | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
'''CONTEMPT - Review and collateral attack''' | '''CONTEMPT - Review and collateral attack''' | ||
| − | Defendant, who had been personally served, could not argue in contempt proceeding that she was not | + | Defendant, who had been personally served, could not argue in contempt proceeding that she was not correctly named in order. Affirmed. |
| − | + | The order used defendant's married name; she had not formally taken her husband's name but habitually used it. The court held that the order applied to her, and also that her contrary argument was an impermissible collateral attack. | |
[https://soll/A168230 State v. Arnold] 301 Or App 642 (January 2, 2020) (Tookey) (Multnomah County, Villa-Smith) | [https://soll/A168230 State v. Arnold] 301 Or App 642 (January 2, 2020) (Tookey) (Multnomah County, Villa-Smith) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
[https://soll/A165394 State v. Lord] 301 Or App 653 (January 2, 2020) (Shorr) (Washington County, Erwin) | [https://soll/A165394 State v. Lord] 301 Or App 653 (January 2, 2020) (Shorr) (Washington County, Erwin) | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''DIVERSION - Termination''' |
| − | + | Trial court did not err by entering conviction for DUII when defendant completed victim's panel one week late. Affirmed. | |
| − | + | The court assumed, but did not decide, that the error was reviewable. | |
| − | [https://soll/ | + | [https://soll/A167563 State v. Canales] 301 Or App 668 (January 2, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Lane County, Merten) |
| − | + | {{wl-publish: 2020-01-03 09:17:57 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Revision as of 10:17, January 4, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
CIVIL COMMITMENT - Willingness to participate in treatment
Evidence supported finding that appellant would not voluntarily participate in treatment. Affirmed.
State v. M.J.M 301 Or App 638 (January 2, 2020) (Ortega) (Lane County, Merten)
CONTEMPT - Review and collateral attack
Defendant, who had been personally served, could not argue in contempt proceeding that she was not correctly named in order. Affirmed.
The order used defendant's married name; she had not formally taken her husband's name but habitually used it. The court held that the order applied to her, and also that her contrary argument was an impermissible collateral attack.
State v. Arnold 301 Or App 642 (January 2, 2020) (Tookey) (Multnomah County, Villa-Smith)
FINES, FEES, AND COSTS - Collection and enforcement
Trial court did not err by referring fines to Department of Revenue. Affirmed.
Court of Appeals presumed that Department of Revenue would not undertake unlawful enforcement action while defendant was incarcerated. The court also declined to review imposition of a $200 fee imposed by the clerk, noting that review would be through mandamus or other action in the trial court.
State v. Lord 301 Or App 653 (January 2, 2020) (Shorr) (Washington County, Erwin)
DIVERSION - Termination
Trial court did not err by entering conviction for DUII when defendant completed victim's panel one week late. Affirmed.
The court assumed, but did not decide, that the error was reviewable.
State v. Canales 301 Or App 668 (January 2, 2020) (Per Curiam) (Lane County, Merten)
