State v. Webster

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Webster

245 P.3d 172, 239 Or. App. 598, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1631

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 15, 2010

DocketCR0811685; A140440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 P.3d 172 (State v. Webster) 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. Webster, 245 P.3d 172, 239 Or. App. 598, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1631 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*599 PER CURIAM

Following a trial to the court on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted of driving while suspended. ORS 811.182. He appeals and asserts, among other things, that the trial court erred when it held a bench trial in the absence of a written waiver of his right to a jury trial. Although defendant did not preserve the asserted error before the trial court, he contends that we should review it as plain error. Because the record contains no written waiver or any other indication that defendant executed such a waiver, the state concedes that the trial court committed plain error. See Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 173 P3d 827 (2007) (reversing as plain error a conviction based on a stipulated facts trial conducted by the court without a written waiver of the defendant’s right to jury trial). We agree and, for the reasons set forth in Barber, exercise our discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*599 PER CURIAM

Following a trial to the court on stipulated facts, defendant was convicted of driving while suspended. ORS 811.182. He appeals and asserts, among other things, that the trial court erred when it held a bench trial in the absence of a written waiver of his right to a jury trial. Although defendant did not preserve the asserted error before the trial court, he contends that we should review it as plain error. Because the record contains no written waiver or any other indication that defendant executed such a waiver, the state concedes that the trial court committed plain error. See Or Const, Art I, § 11; State v. Barber, 343 Or 525, 173 P3d 827 (2007) (reversing as plain error a conviction based on a stipulated facts trial conducted by the court without a written waiver of the defendant’s right to jury trial). We agree and, for the reasons set forth in Barber, exercise our discretion to correct the error. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 P.3d 172, 239 Or. App. 598, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webster-orctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack