State v. Grigsby

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Grigsby

157 P.3d 260, 212 Or. App. 137, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 509

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 11, 2007

DocketCFH050193; A131462

StatusPublished

This text of 157 P.3d 260 (State v. Grigsby) 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. Grigsby, 157 P.3d 260, 212 Or. App. 137, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 509 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeared voluntarily at an arraignment. At the arraignment, he read and signed a release agreement, which ordered him to appear in court on June 13, 2005. When that date arrived, defendant did not appear. He was charged with and convicted of first-degree failure to appear. ORS 162.205. At trial on that charge, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the state had not established that he had been “released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement,” as the law requires. ORS 162.205(1)(a). The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendant argues that, under this court’s decision in State v. Ford, 207 Or App 407, 142 P3d 107 (2006), the trial court erred because there was no showing that he ever was in “custody” within the meaning of the statute. The state concedes that, under Ford, defendant is correct. We agree and accept the concession.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeared voluntarily at an arraignment. At the arraignment, he read and signed a release agreement, which ordered him to appear in court on June 13, 2005. When that date arrived, defendant did not appear. He was charged with and convicted of first-degree failure to appear. ORS 162.205. At trial on that charge, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the state had not established that he had been “released from custody or a correctional facility under a release agreement,” as the law requires. ORS 162.205(1)(a). The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, defendant argues that, under this court’s decision in State v. Ford, 207 Or App 407, 142 P3d 107 (2006), the trial court erred because there was no showing that he ever was in “custody” within the meaning of the statute. The state concedes that, under Ford, defendant is correct. We agree and accept the concession.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 P.3d 260, 212 Or. App. 137, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grigsby-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack