State v. Sollman

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Sollman

DecidedApril 8, 2026

DocketA183423

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Sollman (State v. Sollman) 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. Sollman, (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 297 April 8, 2026 467

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRENDEN SCOTT SOLLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 23CR04416; A183423

Jeffrey S. Jones, Judge. Submitted March 3, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, and Nora E. Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. 468 State v. Sollman

JOYCE, J. Defendant appeals from a conviction for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1). On appeal, defendant argues that the felon in possession stat- ute, as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution because his prior felonies were non- violent felonies. We affirm. Defendant’s argument under the state constitu- tion is unpreserved. Defendant requests plain error review, acknowledging that his argument is foreclosed by State v. Shelnutt, 309 Or App 474, 483 P3d 53, rev den, 368 Or 206 (2021), but asserting that that case was wrongly decided. We are unconvinced that Shelnutt was wrongly decided or that the trial court plainly erred under the Oregon Constitution. Although defendant’s federal argument has evolved since we initially addressed the issue in depth, it is foreclosed by our decision in State v. Parras, 326 Or App 246, 531 P3d 711 (2023), rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 373 Or 284 (2025). See also State v. Ivey, 342 Or App 649, 658, 577 P3d 884, rev den, 374 Or 616 (2025) (concluding that “Parras [was] both controlling and correct” with respect to the defen- dant’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge). Affirmed.

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

No. 297 April 8, 2026 467

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRENDEN SCOTT SOLLMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court 23CR04416; A183423

Jeffrey S. Jones, Judge. Submitted March 3, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, and Nora E. Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. JOYCE, J. Affirmed. 468 State v. Sollman

JOYCE, J. Defendant appeals from a conviction for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1). On appeal, defendant argues that the felon in possession stat- ute, as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution because his prior felonies were non- violent felonies. We affirm. Defendant’s argument under the state constitu- tion is unpreserved. Defendant requests plain error review, acknowledging that his argument is foreclosed by State v. Shelnutt, 309 Or App 474, 483 P3d 53, rev den, 368 Or 206 (2021), but asserting that that case was wrongly decided. We are unconvinced that Shelnutt was wrongly decided or that the trial court plainly erred under the Oregon Constitution. Although defendant’s federal argument has evolved since we initially addressed the issue in depth, it is foreclosed by our decision in State v. Parras, 326 Or App 246, 531 P3d 711 (2023), rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 373 Or 284 (2025). See also State v. Ivey, 342 Or App 649, 658, 577 P3d 884, rev den, 374 Or 616 (2025) (concluding that “Parras [was] both controlling and correct” with respect to the defen- dant’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge). Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Sollman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sollman-orctapp-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack