Oregon Supreme Court, December 31, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • January 13, 2021 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Reasonable suspicion JURY INSTRUCTIONS - Unpled prosecution theories SENTENCING - Restitution </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin John...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | NOTICE OF APPEAL - Timeliness and relation-back | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 18: | Line 16: | ||
The Supreme Court also held that the appellant could prove the filing date with a certification and reliance on the notations on the envelope and retained by the Post Office. | The Supreme Court also held that the appellant could prove the filing date with a certification and reliance on the notations on the envelope and retained by the Post Office. | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S067066 State v. Chapman] 367 Or 388 ( | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S067066 State v. Chapman] 367 Or 388 (December 31, 2020) (Nakamoto) |
| + | |||
'''NOTICE OF APPEAL - Timeliness and relation-back''' | '''NOTICE OF APPEAL - Timeliness and relation-back''' | ||
| Line 27: | Line 26: | ||
The Supreme Court held that first-class mail was a method calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days if, as in this case, it was mailed from Portland on a Friday, in which case, according to official published estimates, it would arrive by the following Monday. | The Supreme Court held that first-class mail was a method calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days if, as in this case, it was mailed from Portland on a Friday, in which case, according to official published estimates, it would arrive by the following Monday. | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S067074 Gould v. Deschutes County] 367 Or 427 ( | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S067074 Gould v. Deschutes County] 367 Or 427 (December 31, 2020) (Nakamoto) |
{{wl-publish: 2021-01-13 10:41:34 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | {{wl-publish: 2021-01-13 10:41:34 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:27, January 20, 2021
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
NOTICE OF APPEAL - Timeliness and relation-back
Ordinary first-class mail can be "calculated to to achieve delivery within three days" such that a notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date of mailing. Court of Appeals reversed.
A notice of appeal is timely if, by the due date, it is sent by “by a class of delivery calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days” and the party filing notice has proof of the mailing or dispatch date. The Court of Appeals held that first-class mail does not qualify, because the Post Office expects to deliver first-class mail within three business days.
The Supreme Court held that first-class mail was a method calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days if, as in this case, there were no nonbusiness days before the projected delivery date.
The Supreme Court also held that the appellant could prove the filing date with a certification and reliance on the notations on the envelope and retained by the Post Office.
State v. Chapman 367 Or 388 (December 31, 2020) (Nakamoto)
NOTICE OF APPEAL - Timeliness and relation-back
Ordinary first-class mail can be "calculated to to achieve delivery within three days" such that a notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date of mailing. Court of Appeals reversed.
A notice of appeal is timely if, by the due date, it is sent by “by a class of delivery calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days” and the party filing notice has proof of the mailing or dispatch date. The Court of Appeals held that first-class mail does not qualify, because the Post Office expects to deliver first-class mail within three business days.
The Supreme Court held that first-class mail was a method calculated to achieve delivery within three calendar days if, as in this case, it was mailed from Portland on a Friday, in which case, according to official published estimates, it would arrive by the following Monday.
Gould v. Deschutes County 367 Or 427 (December 31, 2020) (Nakamoto)
