State v. Keller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Keller

854 P.2d 472, 121 Or. App. 93, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 949

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 9, 1993

Docket92-CR-0026-15; CA A75522

StatusPublished

This text of 854 P.2d 472 (State v. Keller) 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. Keller, 854 P.2d 472, 121 Or. App. 93, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 949 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for felony driving while suspended or revoked. ORS 811.182. Before trial, he moved to exclude evidence of his license revocation as a habitual traffic offender. The trial court granted the motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.

Defendant based his motion on two grounds: (1) that the notice sent by the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) for the revocation failed to comply with certain notice requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, specifically ORS 183.415(2)(c); (2) that the notice also failed to comply with due process. The trial court granted the motion on the first ground, although it relied on ORS 183.415(2)(d). In State v. Vandepoll, 118 Or App 193, 197, 846 P2d 1174 (1993), we held that ORS 183.415 does not apply to a license revocation notice issued by MVD. The trial court erred in holding that it did.

Because the trial court granted the motion on the statutory ground, it did not address defendant’s due process argument. Normally, we would remand to the trial court to determine that issue in the first instance. However, because defendant raised that argument below and the parties thoroughly brief it on appeal, we consider the merits. Having reviewed the contents of the revocation notice, we conclude that it satisfied due process requirements. See Bell v. Burson, 402 US 535, 91 S Ct 1586, 29 L Ed 2d 90 (1971); State v. Jones, 76 Or App 157, 708 P2d 1168 (1985).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for felony driving while suspended or revoked. ORS 811.182. Before trial, he moved to exclude evidence of his license revocation as a habitual traffic offender. The trial court granted the motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.

Defendant based his motion on two grounds: (1) that the notice sent by the Motor Vehicles Division (MVD) for the revocation failed to comply with certain notice requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, specifically ORS 183.415(2)(c); (2) that the notice also failed to comply with due process. The trial court granted the motion on the first ground, although it relied on ORS 183.415(2)(d). In State v. Vandepoll, 118 Or App 193, 197, 846 P2d 1174 (1993), we held that ORS 183.415 does not apply to a license revocation notice issued by MVD. The trial court erred in holding that it did.

Because the trial court granted the motion on the statutory ground, it did not address defendant’s due process argument. Normally, we would remand to the trial court to determine that issue in the first instance. However, because defendant raised that argument below and the parties thoroughly brief it on appeal, we consider the merits. Having reviewed the contents of the revocation notice, we conclude that it satisfied due process requirements. See Bell v. Burson, 402 US 535, 91 S Ct 1586, 29 L Ed 2d 90 (1971); State v. Jones, 76 Or App 157, 708 P2d 1168 (1985).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 P.2d 472, 121 Or. App. 93, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-keller-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack