State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Thomas

458 P.3d 733, 302 Or. App. 633

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 4, 2020

DocketA170251

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 P.3d 733 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 458 P.3d 733, 302 Or. App. 633 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted February 7, reversed and remanded March 4, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ASHLEY T. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18VI208667; A170251 458 P3d 733

Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Ashley Thomas filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 634 State v. Thomas

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment convicting her of speeding. ORS 811.111. Defendant was issued a citation on December 6, 2018. On January 8, 2019, she filed a plea of not guilty and requested a trial. On January 9, 2019, the court sent out a notice of trial scheduled for February 4, 2019. However, in preparing the notice, the court clerk mis- transcribed defendant’s address. The notice was returned to the court on January 15, 2019, indicating “return to sender, insufficient address.” On February 4, 2019, the court held a trial in defendant’s absence, convicted her of the offense, issued notice of suspension her driver’s license, and imposed a fine of $1,150. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in holding a trial and convicting her in her absence because she was not given adequate notice of the trial. The state concedes the error, noting that, under ORS 153.073, unless notice is waived by the defendant, the court is required to provide the defendant with “notice of the date, time and place at least five days before the date set for trial,” and, in cases involving traffic violations, the notice must contain a warning that, if the defendant fails to appear, the defendant’s driving privileges are subject to suspension. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See generally State v. Worthington, 255 Or App 177, 296 P3d 624 (2013) (revers- ing and remanding in a traffic violation case where there was no evidence that the defendant received notice at least five days before the date set for trial). Reversed and remanded.

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

Submitted February 7, reversed and remanded March 4, 2020

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ASHLEY T. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 18VI208667; A170251 458 P3d 733

Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Ashley Thomas filed the brief pro se. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 634 State v. Thomas

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment convicting her of speeding. ORS 811.111. Defendant was issued a citation on December 6, 2018. On January 8, 2019, she filed a plea of not guilty and requested a trial. On January 9, 2019, the court sent out a notice of trial scheduled for February 4, 2019. However, in preparing the notice, the court clerk mis- transcribed defendant’s address. The notice was returned to the court on January 15, 2019, indicating “return to sender, insufficient address.” On February 4, 2019, the court held a trial in defendant’s absence, convicted her of the offense, issued notice of suspension her driver’s license, and imposed a fine of $1,150. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in holding a trial and convicting her in her absence because she was not given adequate notice of the trial. The state concedes the error, noting that, under ORS 153.073, unless notice is waived by the defendant, the court is required to provide the defendant with “notice of the date, time and place at least five days before the date set for trial,” and, in cases involving traffic violations, the notice must contain a warning that, if the defendant fails to appear, the defendant’s driving privileges are subject to suspension. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See generally State v. Worthington, 255 Or App 177, 296 P3d 624 (2013) (revers- ing and remanding in a traffic violation case where there was no evidence that the defendant received notice at least five days before the date set for trial). Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 P.3d 733, 302 Or. App. 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-orctapp-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack