Oregon Appellate Court--January 24, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • January 26, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> <big>JUVENILE LAW</big> *'''JUVENILE LAW—Findings''' *'''JUVENILE LAW—Plain error''' <big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big> *'''PCR—Church hearings''' <big>C...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| − | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson | + | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' |
<big>JUVENILE LAW</big> | <big>JUVENILE LAW</big> | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''JUVENILE LAW—Plain error''' | *'''JUVENILE LAW—Plain error''' | ||
| − | Under ORS 419C.478(1) and State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C. N. W., 212 Or App 551 | + | Under ORS 419C.478(1) and ''State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C. N. W.'', 212 Or App 551 (2007), a juvenile court is required to make findings in support of placing a youth with the OYA, and failing to do so is plain error.<br> |
| − | Additionally, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the court had committed plain error by relying on documentary evidence that was not admitted and on unsworn statements of counsel and the parties in making its decision | + | Additionally, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the court had committed plain error by relying on documentary evidence that was not admitted and on unsworn statements of counsel and the parties in making its decision. The court reasoned that a timely objection would presumably have led the trial court to take or admit evidence. |
| − | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A164477.pdf State v. JRC], 289 Or App 848 (2018) (Per curiam)< | + | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A164477.pdf State v. JRC], 289 Or App 848 (2018) (Per curiam) |
| + | |||
| + | <big>PCR/HABEAS CORPUS</big> | ||
| + | *'''PCR—Church hearings''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Applies [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159785.pdf ''Lopez v. Nooth''], 287 Or App 731,735 (2017), ''Church v. Gladden'', 244 Or 308 (1966) and related cases. | ||
| + | Under ''Lopez'', if a post-conviction court fails to hold a ''Church'' hearing and thereafter dismisses the petition, ORS 138.550(3) does not preclude the petitioner from filing a successive petition as to Church issues. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162105.pdf Crossley v. Meyrick], 289 Or App 846 (2018) (Per curiam) | ||
| + | |||
| + | <big>CRIMINAL PROCEDURE</big> | ||
| + | *'''CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—Findings''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court accepted the state’s concession that the trial court erred by imposing a DUII conviction fee and a bench probation fee in the written judgment when, at the sentencing hearing, the court had orally waived ‘all fees.’ | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A162569.pdf State v. Sankey], 289 Or App 846 (2018) (Per curiam) | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2018-01-26 10:13:25 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson IV }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:13, January 27, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
JUVENILE LAW
- JUVENILE LAW—Findings
- JUVENILE LAW—Plain error
Under ORS 419C.478(1) and State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. C. N. W., 212 Or App 551 (2007), a juvenile court is required to make findings in support of placing a youth with the OYA, and failing to do so is plain error.
Additionally, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the court had committed plain error by relying on documentary evidence that was not admitted and on unsworn statements of counsel and the parties in making its decision. The court reasoned that a timely objection would presumably have led the trial court to take or admit evidence.
State v. JRC, 289 Or App 848 (2018) (Per curiam)
PCR/HABEAS CORPUS
- PCR—Church hearings
Applies Lopez v. Nooth, 287 Or App 731,735 (2017), Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308 (1966) and related cases. Under Lopez, if a post-conviction court fails to hold a Church hearing and thereafter dismisses the petition, ORS 138.550(3) does not preclude the petitioner from filing a successive petition as to Church issues.
Crossley v. Meyrick, 289 Or App 846 (2018) (Per curiam)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—Findings
The court accepted the state’s concession that the trial court erred by imposing a DUII conviction fee and a bench probation fee in the written judgment when, at the sentencing hearing, the court had orally waived ‘all fees.’
State v. Sankey, 289 Or App 846 (2018) (Per curiam)
