Winter v. Cosper

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Winter v. Cosper

172 P.3d 280, 216 Or. App. 330, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1672, 2007 WL 4181985

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 28, 2007

DocketC060253CV; A132254

StatusPublished

This text of 172 P.3d 280 (Winter v. Cosper) 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

Winter v. Cosper, 172 P.3d 280, 216 Or. App. 330, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1672, 2007 WL 4181985 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of contempt for violation of a civil stalking order. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing a punitive contempt sanction of two years’ probation without according him the procedural protections afforded by ORS 33.065. Although defendant did not preserve his claim of error, he argues that it is apparent on the face of the record and that this court should exercise its discretion to correct the error. The state concedes that the error is apparent on the face of the record and agrees that this court should reverse the judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with ORS 33.065.

In light of the gravity of the error, and the state’s concession, we exercise our discretion to correct it. See generally Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment of contempt for violation of a civil stalking order. He argues that the trial court erred in imposing a punitive contempt sanction of two years’ probation without according him the procedural protections afforded by ORS 33.065. Although defendant did not preserve his claim of error, he argues that it is apparent on the face of the record and that this court should exercise its discretion to correct the error. The state concedes that the error is apparent on the face of the record and agrees that this court should reverse the judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with ORS 33.065.

In light of the gravity of the error, and the state’s concession, we exercise our discretion to correct it. See generally Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 n 6, 823 P2d 956 (1991).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 P.3d 280, 216 Or. App. 330, 2007 Ore. App. LEXIS 1672, 2007 WL 4181985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winter-v-cosper-orctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack