State v. Brase

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Brase

40 P.3d 1111, 179 Or. App. 667, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 300

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 20, 2002

Docket970441821; A108014

StatusPublished

This text of 40 P.3d 1111 (State v. Brase) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brase, 40 P.3d 1111, 179 Or. App. 667, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 300 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge on the ground that defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights under ORS 135.747 had been violated.¹ The state concedes the error and, for the reasons discussed below, we accept the state’s concession, and therefore reverse defendant’s conviction.

The facts of the present case are virtually identical to those of State v. Rohlfing, 155 Or App 127, 973 P2d 87 (1998), in that defendant had no notice of pending charges against her, and the state made no effort to execute the warrant for her arrest. Although the time period involved was less than the time period involved in Rohlfing, the state acknowledges that the amount of time at issue here has been deemed unreasonable in cases involving similar facts. We agree.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge on the ground that defendant’s statutory speedy trial rights under ORS 135.747 had been violated.¹ The state concedes the error and, for the reasons discussed below, we accept the state’s concession, and therefore reverse defendant’s conviction.

The facts of the present case are virtually identical to those of State v. Rohlfing, 155 Or App 127, 973 P2d 87 (1998), in that defendant had no notice of pending charges against her, and the state made no effort to execute the warrant for her arrest. Although the time period involved was less than the time period involved in Rohlfing, the state acknowledges that the amount of time at issue here has been deemed unreasonable in cases involving similar facts. We agree.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 P.3d 1111, 179 Or. App. 667, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brase-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack