State v. Backus
525 P.2d 1058, 18 Or. App. 513, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 990
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of a violation, ORS 167.-207 (3). The judgment order erroneously recited:
“It is hereby * * * ADJUDGED that * * * [514] BACKUS is GUILTY of the crime of ‘CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN DRUGS’ * * (Emphasis supplied.)
ORS 161.565 provides:
“An offense is a violation if it is so designated in the statute defining the offense or if the offense is punishable only by a fine, forfeiture, fine and forfeiture or other civil penalty. Conviction of a violation does not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a crime.”
Thus it follows that an amended order deleting the word “crime,” and substituting the word “violation,”
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Backus, 525 P.2d 1058, 18 Or. App. 513, 1974 Ore. App. LEXIS 990 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
525 P.2d 1058 (State v. Backus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Payzant
574 P.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1978)