State v. Epps

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Epps

349 P.3d 659, 271 Or. App. 232, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 579

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 13, 2015

Docket130733156; A155075

StatusPublished

This text of 349 P.3d 659 (State v. Epps) 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. Epps, 349 P.3d 659, 271 Or. App. 232, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 579 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, the state appeals from a judgment that imposed a 90-day term of incarceration as a result of defendant’s conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), but suspended execution of that sentence. The state is correct that the sentencing court erred in suspending execution of the 90-day term of incarceration. ORS 813.011 provides that DUII is a Class C felony, for which a defendant “shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 90 days” if the defendant has been convicted of DUII at least twice within the 10 years prior to the current offense. As we recently held in State v. Urie, 268 Or App 362, 367, 341 P3d 855 (2014), “ORS 813.011(3) does not permit a sentencing court to suspend execution of, or reduce in any way, the mandatory minimum 90-day term of incarceration provided in the statute.”

Defendant argues in the alternative that ORS 813.011, which was enacted by voters in 2011 as part of Measure 73, is invalid because Measure 73 violated the single-subject rule found in Article IV, section 1(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution. However, another recent case disposes of that argument as well. We concluded in State v. Mercer, 269 Or App 135, 142, 344 P3d 109 (2015), that “Measure 73 was not adopted in violation of the single-subject requirement of Article IV, section 1(2)(d).”

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this criminal case, the state appeals from a judgment that imposed a 90-day term of incarceration as a result of defendant’s conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), but suspended execution of that sentence. The state is correct that the sentencing court erred in suspending execution of the 90-day term of incarceration. ORS 813.011 provides that DUII is a Class C felony, for which a defendant “shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 90 days” if the defendant has been convicted of DUII at least twice within the 10 years prior to the current offense. As we recently held in State v. Urie, 268 Or App 362, 367, 341 P3d 855 (2014), “ORS 813.011(3) does not permit a sentencing court to suspend execution of, or reduce in any way, the mandatory minimum 90-day term of incarceration provided in the statute.”

Defendant argues in the alternative that ORS 813.011, which was enacted by voters in 2011 as part of Measure 73, is invalid because Measure 73 violated the single-subject rule found in Article IV, section 1(2)(d), of the Oregon Constitution. However, another recent case disposes of that argument as well. We concluded in State v. Mercer, 269 Or App 135, 142, 344 P3d 109 (2015), that “Measure 73 was not adopted in violation of the single-subject requirement of Article IV, section 1(2)(d).”

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

349 P.3d 659, 271 Or. App. 232, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-epps-orctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack