State v. Mussler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Mussler

129 P.3d 210, 204 Or. App. 117, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 100

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 1, 2006

Docket03C52155; A125227

StatusPublished

This text of 129 P.3d 210 (State v. Mussler) 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. Mussler, 129 P.3d 210, 204 Or. App. 117, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 100 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992. He argues that his conviction must be reversed because the record fails to establish that he waived in writing his right to jury trial. He further argues that the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence. The state concedes that the record does not include a written jury waiver and that the conviction must therefore be reversed. We accept the state’s concession and agree that, because of the absence of a written jury waiver, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the matter must be remanded for a new trial. State v. Stephens, 184 Or App 556, 56 P3d 950 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 195 (2003). Because we reverse the conviction, we do not address defendant’s arguments regarding his sentence.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for manufacture of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992. He argues that his conviction must be reversed because the record fails to establish that he waived in writing his right to jury trial. He further argues that the trial court erred in imposing an upward departure sentence. The state concedes that the record does not include a written jury waiver and that the conviction must therefore be reversed. We accept the state’s concession and agree that, because of the absence of a written jury waiver, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the matter must be remanded for a new trial. State v. Stephens, 184 Or App 556, 56 P3d 950 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 195 (2003). Because we reverse the conviction, we do not address defendant’s arguments regarding his sentence.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 P.3d 210, 204 Or. App. 117, 2006 Ore. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mussler-orctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack