State v. Kelley

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Kelley

850 P.2d 1170, 119 Or. App. 496, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 611

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 21, 1993

DocketCF 92-0008; CA A75523

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 850 P.2d 1170 (State v. Kelley) 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. Kelley, 850 P.2d 1170, 119 Or. App. 496, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 611 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). Before trial, the court dismissed the charge on the ground that the state is collaterally estopped from prosecuting defendant for the charged conduct, because the same conduct had previously formed the basis for a revocation of probation on an earlier conviction. Defendant concedes that collateral estoppel does not prevent the state from prosecuting him for possession of a controlled substance. He contends, however, that prosecution is barred for reasons of former jeopardy.

In State v. Maricich, 101 Or App 212, 789 P2d 701 (1990), we held that a prosecution for criminal conduct is not barred, on the ground of former jeopardy, by the prior revocation of the defendant’s probation in another case based on the same criminal conduct. We adhere to that holding. The trial court improperly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4). Before trial, the court dismissed the charge on the ground that the state is collaterally estopped from prosecuting defendant for the charged conduct, because the same conduct had previously formed the basis for a revocation of probation on an earlier conviction. Defendant concedes that collateral estoppel does not prevent the state from prosecuting him for possession of a controlled substance. He contends, however, that prosecution is barred for reasons of former jeopardy.

In State v. Maricich, 101 Or App 212, 789 P2d 701 (1990), we held that a prosecution for criminal conduct is not barred, on the ground of former jeopardy, by the prior revocation of the defendant’s probation in another case based on the same criminal conduct. We adhere to that holding. The trial court improperly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

850 P.2d 1170, 119 Or. App. 496, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelley-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack