State v. Stull

332 Or. App. 674

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: A178951
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

674 May 22, 2024 No. 337

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. BARRY JOE STULL, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 19CR21313; A178951

Andrew M. Lavin, Judge. Submitted April 29, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. MOONEY, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 674 (2024) 675

MOONEY, J. Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his proba- tion. He assigns error to the trial court’s finding that he violated probation by possessing a weapon, arguing that the state produced insufficient evidence of the charged vio- lation because the “softball sized rock” that he possessed did not qualify as a “weapon.” But it is well-established that common objects may be considered dangerous weapons depending on how they are used, including the pavement, a hardwood floor, a can opener, and any “small, hard object.” Sutherland v. Fhuere, 332 Or App 589, 592-93, ___ P3d ___ (2024) (asphalt pavement); State v. Glazier, 253 Or App 109, 114, 288 P3d 1007 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 280 (2013) (hard- wood floor); State v. Gale, 36 Or App 275, 278, 583 P2d 1169 (1978) (can opener); State v. Allen, 108 Or App 402, 405-06, 816 P2d 639 (1991) (“small, hard object”). The evidence sup- ports a determination that defendant possessed and threw softball sized rocks at passing vehicles. We affirm. Affirmed.