State v. Carroll

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 11-07-2012
  • Case #: A146784
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Diversion is not a defense to DUII and the amended criteria for diversion eligibility does not increase DUII punishment.

Defendant appealed a ruling that he is ineligible for diversion of his misdemeanor DUII charge under the amended version of ORS 813.215(1)(b). The Oregon legislature amended the diversion statute to increase the “look-back” period from 10 to 15 years. Defendant would have been eligible for diversion under a 10 year “look-back” provision, but was not eligible under the amended statute because of DUII convictions 12 years prior. Defendant argued that by eliminating his eligibility for diversion, he was deprived of a defense to his DUII and that his ineligibility for diversion constitutes “greater or additional punishment”. The Court of Appeals held that diversion is not a defense to DUII and that the criteria for diversion eligibility does not increase DUII punishment under Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution. Affirmed.

Advanced Search