State v. Chase

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Chase

851 P.2d 637, 120 Or. App. 523, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 743

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 19, 1993

Docket10-86-03551B, 10-86-03551X, 10-86-03551 CA A66149 (Control), CA A66233, CA A66370

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 851 P.2d 637 (State v. Chase) 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. Chase, 851 P.2d 637, 120 Or. App. 523, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 743 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

*525 PER CURIAM

In CA A66149 and CA A66233, defendant appeals from an order that revoked his probation and executed a previously suspended sentence. ORS 138.040; ORS 138.053 (l)(f), (3). He argues that his probation was void and that the trial court erred in revoking it. He also argues that the court failed to advise him of his right to counsel in the probation revocation proceeding. The state asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because defendant has served the executed sentence and was discharged from parole. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or 176, 178, 708 P2d 355 (1985). Defendant does not oppose the state’s request for dismissal or identify any collateral consequences that might derive from the order if not vacated. See State v. Lincoln, 5 Or App 138, 483 P2d 92 (1971). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals from that order as moot.

Defendant also appeals in CA A66370 from an order dismissing what purports to be a civil action against a deputy district attorney. His assignments relating to that dismissal do not require discussion.

CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed.

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

*525 PER CURIAM

In CA A66149 and CA A66233, defendant appeals from an order that revoked his probation and executed a previously suspended sentence. ORS 138.040; ORS 138.053 (l)(f), (3). He argues that his probation was void and that the trial court erred in revoking it. He also argues that the court failed to advise him of his right to counsel in the probation revocation proceeding. The state asks us to dismiss the appeal as moot, because defendant has served the executed sentence and was discharged from parole. State v. Neidenbach, 300 Or 176, 178, 708 P2d 355 (1985). Defendant does not oppose the state’s request for dismissal or identify any collateral consequences that might derive from the order if not vacated. See State v. Lincoln, 5 Or App 138, 483 P2d 92 (1971). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals from that order as moot.

Defendant also appeals in CA A66370 from an order dismissing what purports to be a civil action against a deputy district attorney. His assignments relating to that dismissal do not require discussion.

CA A66149 and CA A66233 dismissed as moot; CA A66370 affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 P.2d 637, 120 Or. App. 523, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chase-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack