State v. Brooks

Oregon Supreme Court

State v. Brooks

331 P.2d 343, 214 Or. 535, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 335

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 331 P.2d 343 (State v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brooks, 331 P.2d 343, 214 Or. 535, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 335 (Or. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

LUSK, J.

This is an attempted appeal by the defendant from an order of the circuit court denying defendant’s “motion for an order in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis.” The motion was based on newly .discovered evidence and was filed after the statutory time for filing a motion for a new trial had expired. The court denied the relief sought on the ground that “the motion for relief in the nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on the grounds of newly discovered evidence does not lie for the purpose of extending the time within which to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.”

In State v. Endsley, — Or —, — P2d —, this day decided, we held that a similar order was not appealable because there is no statute in this state authorizing an appeal in cases where relief is sought by way of a motion in the nature of coram nobis. The State has not moved to dismiss this appeal. Where, however, it is apparent, as it is here, that this court is without jurisdiction of an appeal, it is the duty of the court to raise the question on its own motion and to proceed no further with the case. Our decision in the Endsley case is controlling. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

LUSK, J.

This is an attempted appeal by the defendant from an order of the circuit court denying defendant’s “motion for an order in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis.” The motion was based on newly .discovered evidence and was filed after the statutory time for filing a motion for a new trial had expired. The court denied the relief sought on the ground that “the motion for relief in the nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on the grounds of newly discovered evidence does not lie for the purpose of extending the time within which to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.”

In State v. Endsley, — Or —, — P2d —, this day decided, we held that a similar order was not appealable because there is no statute in this state authorizing an appeal in cases where relief is sought by way of a motion in the nature of coram nobis. The State has not moved to dismiss this appeal. Where, however, it is apparent, as it is here, that this court is without jurisdiction of an appeal, it is the duty of the court to raise the question on its own motion and to proceed no further with the case. Our decision in the Endsley case is controlling. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 P.2d 343, 214 Or. 535, 1958 Ore. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brooks-or-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack