State v. Oeleis

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Oeleis

786 P.2d 1322, 100 Or. App. 590, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 160

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 21, 1990

Docket88CR-897; CA A51066

StatusPublished

This text of 786 P.2d 1322 (State v. Oeleis) 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. Oeleis, 786 P.2d 1322, 100 Or. App. 590, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 160 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He first contends that the court erred in denying his petition for diversion, because it incorrectly found that he was not eligible for diversion. In fact, the court found defendant eligible for diversion but nonetheless denied his petition pursuant to its discretionary authority. ORS 813.220; State v. Thomas, 85 Or App 460, 737 P2d 143 (1987). Defendant does not argue, nor do we find, that the court abused its discretion.

Defendant also contends that the court erred in imposing a three-year suspension of his driver’s license. Because defendant had no prior conviction when the citation was issued, we agree with the state’s concession that the court was not authorized to impose the three-year suspension. ORS 809.420(2); State v. Carney, 94 Or App 302, 765 P2d 232 (1988).

Conviction affirmed; suspension of driver’s license vacated and remanded for reconsideration.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He first contends that the court erred in denying his petition for diversion, because it incorrectly found that he was not eligible for diversion. In fact, the court found defendant eligible for diversion but nonetheless denied his petition pursuant to its discretionary authority. ORS 813.220; State v. Thomas, 85 Or App 460, 737 P2d 143 (1987). Defendant does not argue, nor do we find, that the court abused its discretion.

Defendant also contends that the court erred in imposing a three-year suspension of his driver’s license. Because defendant had no prior conviction when the citation was issued, we agree with the state’s concession that the court was not authorized to impose the three-year suspension. ORS 809.420(2); State v. Carney, 94 Or App 302, 765 P2d 232 (1988).

Conviction affirmed; suspension of driver’s license vacated and remanded for reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

786 P.2d 1322, 100 Or. App. 590, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oeleis-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack