State v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Davis

457 P.3d 1116, 302 Or. App. 374

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 20, 2020

DocketA167887

StatusPublished

This text of 457 P.3d 1116 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 457 P.3d 1116, 302 Or. App. 374 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted January 16, affirmed February 20, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DREW JAMES DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 17CR32193, 17CR36901; A167887 (Control), A167888 457 P3d 1116

Martin E. Stone, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 302 Or App 374 (2020) 375

PER CURIAM In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant appeals judgments of conviction, entered after a bench trial, for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1); one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250; and one count of failure to appear, ORS 162.205. He raises two assignments of error, both of which challenge his sentences. He contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new sentencing- enhancement trial or, alternatively, by refusing to strike certain testimony, as a sanction for a discovery violation by the state; and (2) erred in determining that defendant’s sen- tence for failure to appear could be enhanced on the basis that he committed that crime for the purpose of evading prosecution (in addition to other bases for enhancement that the trial court concluded independently warranted enhance- ment). In response, the state argues that the court did not err in either respect but that, if it erred in one way or the other, the court’s speaking verdict shows that either alleged error had little likelihood of affecting the court’s decision. See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (articu- lating test for harmless error). Having considered the record, we agree with the state that the alleged errors by the trial court—if errors—were harmless under the circumstances of this case, and we affirm for that reason. Affirmed.

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

Submitted January 16, affirmed February 20, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DREW JAMES DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant. Coos County Circuit Court 17CR32193, 17CR36901; A167887 (Control), A167888 457 P3d 1116

Martin E. Stone, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 302 Or App 374 (2020) 375

PER CURIAM In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant appeals judgments of conviction, entered after a bench trial, for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1); one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, ORS 166.250; and one count of failure to appear, ORS 162.205. He raises two assignments of error, both of which challenge his sentences. He contends that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new sentencing- enhancement trial or, alternatively, by refusing to strike certain testimony, as a sanction for a discovery violation by the state; and (2) erred in determining that defendant’s sen- tence for failure to appear could be enhanced on the basis that he committed that crime for the purpose of evading prosecution (in addition to other bases for enhancement that the trial court concluded independently warranted enhance- ment). In response, the state argues that the court did not err in either respect but that, if it erred in one way or the other, the court’s speaking verdict shows that either alleged error had little likelihood of affecting the court’s decision. See State v. Davis, 336 Or 19, 32, 77 P3d 1111 (2003) (articu- lating test for harmless error). Having considered the record, we agree with the state that the alleged errors by the trial court—if errors—were harmless under the circumstances of this case, and we affirm for that reason. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 P.3d 1116, 302 Or. App. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack