State v. J. J. W.-H.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. J. J. W.-H.

500 P.3d 774, 316 Or. App. 694

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 29, 2021

DocketA174472

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 500 P.3d 774 (State v. J. J. W.-H.) 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. J. J. W.-H., 500 P.3d 774, 316 Or. App. 694 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Argued and submitted November 18, affirmed December 29, 2021

In the Matter of J. J. W.-H., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. J. J. W.-H., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 20JU00727; A174472 500 P3d 774

Brendan J. Kane, Judge. Ginger Fitch argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Youth, Rights & Justice. Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 316 Or App 694 (2021) 695

PER CURIAM In this juvenile delinquency case, youth appeals from a judgment and dispositional order that placed him in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). Youth assigns error to the juvenile court’s disposition. He raises two arguments in support of his assignment. First, he contends that the juvenile delinquency code, which requires consideration of a youth’s “best interests” when considering an OYA custodial placement, generally evinces a presump- tion in favor of a youth’s placement at home instead of in a residential setting under OYA custody. He contends that the court erred, because the evidence presented at the disposi- tional hearing did not overcome that presumption. Second, he contends that the court erred when finding that place- ment under OYA custody was in youth’s “best interests,” because the court impermissibly balanced the best-interests determination with the safety interests of the community. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that those argu- ments were not preserved before the juvenile court. We also conclude that the purposes and rules of preservation were not met or excused in this case. Youth does not seek plain error review, and we do not exercise our discretion to engage in plain error review. Affirmed.

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

Argued and submitted November 18, affirmed December 29, 2021

In the Matter of J. J. W.-H., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. J. J. W.-H., Appellant. Linn County Circuit Court 20JU00727; A174472 500 P3d 774

Brendan J. Kane, Judge. Ginger Fitch argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Youth, Rights & Justice. Jon Zunkel-deCoursey, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 316 Or App 694 (2021) 695

PER CURIAM In this juvenile delinquency case, youth appeals from a judgment and dispositional order that placed him in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA). Youth assigns error to the juvenile court’s disposition. He raises two arguments in support of his assignment. First, he contends that the juvenile delinquency code, which requires consideration of a youth’s “best interests” when considering an OYA custodial placement, generally evinces a presump- tion in favor of a youth’s placement at home instead of in a residential setting under OYA custody. He contends that the court erred, because the evidence presented at the disposi- tional hearing did not overcome that presumption. Second, he contends that the court erred when finding that place- ment under OYA custody was in youth’s “best interests,” because the court impermissibly balanced the best-interests determination with the safety interests of the community. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that those argu- ments were not preserved before the juvenile court. We also conclude that the purposes and rules of preservation were not met or excused in this case. Youth does not seek plain error review, and we do not exercise our discretion to engage in plain error review. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 P.3d 774, 316 Or. App. 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-j-j-w-h-orctapp-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack