State v. Johns

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Johns

894 P.2d 1218, 134 Or. App. 202, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 652

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 26, 1995

Docket93-06-164 CR; CA A83771

StatusPublished

This text of 894 P.2d 1218 (State v. Johns) 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. Johns, 894 P.2d 1218, 134 Or. App. 202, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 652 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, the state contends that “[t]he trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss [an] amended information.” We affirm.

On January 13, 1993, defendant received citations for illegal possession of a game mammal, illegal taking of a game mammal without a valid tag, ORS 498.002, and loaning an elk tag to another, ORS 497.400. Later, after numerous proceedings in justice court, the district attorney elected to charge those offenses as misdemeanors and filed an information in circuit court. However, because the information did not allege that defendant had a culpable mental state, it in fact charged defendant with violations. ORS 496.992(2). Defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds.

On January 24, 1994, the state moved to file an amended information, which alleged that defendant had a culpable mental state. The trial court did not explicitly rule on that motion, and on January 25,1994, it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the original information.

The state does not assign error to the dismissal of the first information or to the trial court’s disposition of the state’s motion to file an amended information. Instead, it assigns error to the dismissal of an amended information that was never filed and on which the trial court never made a ruling. Thus, the state asks for review of an order that was never entered.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

In this appeal, the state contends that “[t]he trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss [an] amended information.” We affirm.

On January 13, 1993, defendant received citations for illegal possession of a game mammal, illegal taking of a game mammal without a valid tag, ORS 498.002, and loaning an elk tag to another, ORS 497.400. Later, after numerous proceedings in justice court, the district attorney elected to charge those offenses as misdemeanors and filed an information in circuit court. However, because the information did not allege that defendant had a culpable mental state, it in fact charged defendant with violations. ORS 496.992(2). Defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds.

On January 24, 1994, the state moved to file an amended information, which alleged that defendant had a culpable mental state. The trial court did not explicitly rule on that motion, and on January 25,1994, it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the original information.

The state does not assign error to the dismissal of the first information or to the trial court’s disposition of the state’s motion to file an amended information. Instead, it assigns error to the dismissal of an amended information that was never filed and on which the trial court never made a ruling. Thus, the state asks for review of an order that was never entered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

894 P.2d 1218, 134 Or. App. 202, 1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johns-orctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack