State v. Gostevskyh

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gostevskyh

300 P.3d 306, 256 Or. App. 472, 2013 WL 1777092, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 467

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 24, 2013

Docket10C40028; A146637

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 P.3d 306 (State v. Gostevskyh) 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. Gostevskyh, 300 P.3d 306, 256 Or. App. 472, 2013 WL 1777092, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 467 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for fourth-degree assault and contempt, asserting two assignments of error: (1) that the trial court erred in admitting, as substantive evidence, the victim’s hearsay statements to the investigating deputy sheriff, and (2) that the court erred in entering a misdemeanor conviction for contempt, based on defendant’s violation of his pretrial release agreement, because contempt is not a crime. We reject defendant’s first assignment of error without discussion. With regard to the second, the state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in entering the finding of contempt as a misdemeanor conviction. We agree and accept the state’s concession; moreover, considering the interests of the parties and the ends of justice in this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. See State v. Quade, 252 Or App 577, 287 P3d 1278 (2012) (correcting as plain error the trial court’s entry of misdemeanor convictions for contempt); State v. Caldwell, 247 Or App 372, 375 n 1, 270 P3d 341 (2011) (“A conviction for contempt is not a proper disposition.”); State v. Reynolds, 239 Or App 313, 316, 243 P3d 496 (2010) (accepting state’s concession that contempt is not a crime and that the court erred in entering a conviction for contempt).

Conviction on Count 4 reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for fourth-degree assault and contempt, asserting two assignments of error: (1) that the trial court erred in admitting, as substantive evidence, the victim’s hearsay statements to the investigating deputy sheriff, and (2) that the court erred in entering a misdemeanor conviction for contempt, based on defendant’s violation of his pretrial release agreement, because contempt is not a crime. We reject defendant’s first assignment of error without discussion. With regard to the second, the state concedes that the trial court plainly erred in entering the finding of contempt as a misdemeanor conviction. We agree and accept the state’s concession; moreover, considering the interests of the parties and the ends of justice in this case, we conclude that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error. See State v. Quade, 252 Or App 577, 287 P3d 1278 (2012) (correcting as plain error the trial court’s entry of misdemeanor convictions for contempt); State v. Caldwell, 247 Or App 372, 375 n 1, 270 P3d 341 (2011) (“A conviction for contempt is not a proper disposition.”); State v. Reynolds, 239 Or App 313, 316, 243 P3d 496 (2010) (accepting state’s concession that contempt is not a crime and that the court erred in entering a conviction for contempt).

Conviction on Count 4 reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment finding defendant in contempt of court; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 P.3d 306, 256 Or. App. 472, 2013 WL 1777092, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gostevskyh-orctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack