State v. Lockard

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Lockard

866 P.2d 520, 125 Or. App. 680, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 13

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJanuary 5, 1994

Docket15-85-08944 B; CA A78781

StatusPublished

This text of 866 P.2d 520 (State v. Lockard) 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. Lockard, 866 P.2d 520, 125 Or. App. 680, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 13 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of contempt for failure to comply with the terms of a judgment modifying a dissolution judgment.¹ We affirm.

Defendant and his ex-wife orally stipulated to a modification of their dissolution judgment. Defendant refused to sign a written agreement. On November 13,1990, the trial court memorialized the oral agreement in a written order. Defendant appealed the judgment entered on that order, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment and that the judgment violated his constitutional rights. We affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court denied review. Lockard and Lockard, 110 Or App 371, 821 P2d 1134 (1991), rev den 313 Or 210 (1992).

Several months after the Supreme Court denied review, the complaint in this case was filed, charging defendant with several violations of the November 13,1990, order. Defendant did not dispute the charges, and the trial court found him in criminal contempt.

Defendant contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the November 13, 1990, order, that the judgment entered based on that order is invalid and that he therefore cannot be punished for violating it. Defendant raised and lost that argument in Lockard and Lockard, supra. We will not revisit it. State v. Pratt, 316 Or 561, 569, 853 P2d 827 (1993).

We have considered and reject without discussion defendant’s remaining assignments of error.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of contempt for failure to comply with the terms of a judgment modifying a dissolution judgment.¹ We affirm.

Defendant and his ex-wife orally stipulated to a modification of their dissolution judgment. Defendant refused to sign a written agreement. On November 13,1990, the trial court memorialized the oral agreement in a written order. Defendant appealed the judgment entered on that order, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment and that the judgment violated his constitutional rights. We affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court denied review. Lockard and Lockard, 110 Or App 371, 821 P2d 1134 (1991), rev den 313 Or 210 (1992).

Several months after the Supreme Court denied review, the complaint in this case was filed, charging defendant with several violations of the November 13,1990, order. Defendant did not dispute the charges, and the trial court found him in criminal contempt.

Defendant contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the November 13, 1990, order, that the judgment entered based on that order is invalid and that he therefore cannot be punished for violating it. Defendant raised and lost that argument in Lockard and Lockard, supra. We will not revisit it. State v. Pratt, 316 Or 561, 569, 853 P2d 827 (1993).

We have considered and reject without discussion defendant’s remaining assignments of error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 P.2d 520, 125 Or. App. 680, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lockard-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack