State v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Ramirez

505 P.3d 1106, 318 Or. App. 226

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 9, 2022

DocketA173769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 P.3d 1106 (State v. Ramirez) 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. Ramirez, 505 P.3d 1106, 318 Or. App. 226 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted February 11, affirmed March 9, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERNESTO MASCORRO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR75029; A173769 505 P3d 1106

Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 318 Or App 226 (2022) 227

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted, among other counts, of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300. The trial court merged the verdicts on the two convictions, and on appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal as to each. We affirm. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we view the evidence—including all reasonable inferences and credibil- ity determinations that may be drawn from the evidence–in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63, 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995); State v. Simmons, 279 Or App 756, 759-60, 764, 379 P3d 580, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016). Our task is not to decide whether we believe a defendant is guilty beyond a reason- able doubt—our task is to determine whether any reason- able factfinder, on this record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, could conclude that defen- dant was guilty. Cunningham, 320 Or at 63. Having reviewed the record here, with the applica- ble standard of review in mind, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.

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

Submitted February 11, affirmed March 9, 2022

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERNESTO MASCORRO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court 19CR75029; A173769 505 P3d 1106

Janelle F. Wipper, Judge. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Bruce A. Myers, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. Cite as 318 Or App 226 (2022) 227

PER CURIAM Defendant was convicted, among other counts, of one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, and one count of possession of a stolen vehicle, ORS 819.300. The trial court merged the verdicts on the two convictions, and on appeal defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal as to each. We affirm. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal conviction, we view the evidence—including all reasonable inferences and credibil- ity determinations that may be drawn from the evidence–in the light most favorable to the state. State v. Cunningham, 320 Or 47, 63, 880 P2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 US 1005 (1995); State v. Simmons, 279 Or App 756, 759-60, 764, 379 P3d 580, rev den, 360 Or 697 (2016). Our task is not to decide whether we believe a defendant is guilty beyond a reason- able doubt—our task is to determine whether any reason- able factfinder, on this record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, could conclude that defen- dant was guilty. Cunningham, 320 Or at 63. Having reviewed the record here, with the applica- ble standard of review in mind, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 P.3d 1106, 318 Or. App. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-orctapp-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack