State v. Vaughn

805 P.2d 733, 105 Or. App. 518, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 173
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedFebruary 6, 1991
Docket10-78-8808; CA A61085
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 P.2d 733 (State v. Vaughn) 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. Vaughn, 805 P.2d 733, 105 Or. App. 518, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

EDMONDS, J.

Defendant appeals an order continuing his probation. ORS 137.550(1)(a).1 He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, because a valid arrest warrant had not been issued within the period of probation. We affirm.

Defendant was convicted of felony driving while suspended and sentenced in November, 1978. Former ORS 487.560 (repealed by Or Laws 1983, ch 338, § 978). Execution of the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for three years. In April, 1980, the court issued an order to show cause and ordered that a bench warrant be issued for his arrest. A warrant signed by the court clerk issued. Defendant was not arraigned on the probation violation until 1989. After a hearing, the court entered an order that continued him on probation and imposed additional conditions.

The state contends that we lack jurisdiction, because the order from which defendant appeals was not a “judgment on a conviction” under ORS 138.040.2 We disagree. The order continuing probation is appealable and reviewable. State v. Donovan, 307 Or 461, 770 P2d 581 (1989); see also State v. Altman, 97 Or App 462, 777 P2d 969 (1989); State v. Crocker, 96 Or App 111, 771 P2d 1026 (1989).

When the state moved for a show cause order, the court retained jurisdiction to modify and to extend defendant’s probation. State v. Lopez, 30 Or App 687, 691, 567 P2d 1059 (1977). However, defendant contends that that jurisdiction was lost, because the warrant was issued by a court clerk, rather than a magistrate, and was therefore invalid. He argues [521]*521that, under ORS 137.550(2),3 “warrant” means an arrest warrant under ORS 133.140(5).4 Accordingly, because a magistrate did not sign the warrant, the court did not retain jurisdiction.

ORS 137.550(2) does not specify the type of warrant that a court may issue in order to retain its jurisdiction over a defendant who is on probation. However, when read with ORS 131.005(2)5 and when compared with ORS 131.005(14),6 it is apparent that the legislature contemplated that a bench warrant could be used to procure the appearance of a probationer who has absconded. The bench warrant issued for defendant’s arrest complies with the requirements of ORS 137.060,7 and [522]*522the trial court retained jurisdiction to hold a hearing in 1989.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Pueblo v. Rodríguez Meléndez
150 P.R. Dec. 519 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2000)
Pueblo v. Gustavo Javier Rodriguez Melendez
2000 TSPR 41 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
805 P.2d 733, 105 Or. App. 518, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vaughn-orctapp-1991.