State v. Cruz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cruz

DecidedMay 6, 2026

DocketA186266

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Cruz (State v. Cruz) 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. Cruz, (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 384 May 6, 2026 353

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SERGIO CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 24CR58091; A186266

Daina A. Vitolins, Judge. Submitted March 13, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. Affirmed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 354 State v. Cruz

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, in his only assignment of error, he contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a probation condition requiring defendant to “[o]bey all laws, municipal, county, state, and federal, and in circumstances in which state and federal law con- flict, obey state law.” Specifically, defendant contends that that probation condition violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We affirm. Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by our deci- sion in State v. McClintock-Perez, 346 Or App 34, 583 P3d 574 (2025), in which we rejected the same argument that defendant makes concerning the same probation condi- tion imposed on a different defendant, concluding that, in “light of the parties’ competing arguments and lack of direct authority for the asserted error, the legal point is reasonably in dispute and is not obvious.” Id. at 37. That is, if there was any error in imposing the challenged probation condition for the reason that defendant contends, the error is not plain. See id. at 36-37 (describing requirements for “plain error”). Affirmed.

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

No. 384 May 6, 2026 353

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SERGIO CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. Jefferson County Circuit Court 24CR58091; A186266

Daina A. Vitolins, Judge. Submitted March 13, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.* EGAN, J. Affirmed.

______________ * Determined by a two-judge department as authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b). 354 State v. Cruz

EGAN, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, in his only assignment of error, he contends that the trial court plainly erred in imposing a probation condition requiring defendant to “[o]bey all laws, municipal, county, state, and federal, and in circumstances in which state and federal law con- flict, obey state law.” Specifically, defendant contends that that probation condition violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We affirm. Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by our deci- sion in State v. McClintock-Perez, 346 Or App 34, 583 P3d 574 (2025), in which we rejected the same argument that defendant makes concerning the same probation condi- tion imposed on a different defendant, concluding that, in “light of the parties’ competing arguments and lack of direct authority for the asserted error, the legal point is reasonably in dispute and is not obvious.” Id. at 37. That is, if there was any error in imposing the challenged probation condition for the reason that defendant contends, the error is not plain. See id. at 36-37 (describing requirements for “plain error”). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Cruz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cruz-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack