State v. Roberts

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 02-06-2013
  • Case #: A148465
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Wollheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A plea of no contest to a municipal violation constitutes a conviction for purposes of expunction under ORS 137.225(5)(e)

The State appealed from the trial court's grant of Defendant's motion to set aside his conviction and have his past criminal conviction of unlawful delivery of marijuana sealed. The State asserted that Defendant was not eligible for expunction under ORS 137.225(5)(e), as Defendant had been convicted of urinating in public, a municipal violation. Defendant argued that although ORS 137.225(6)(b) excluded a filing of a motion for expunction for those convicted of a separate offense within ten years of the original conviction, he had not been convicted in the meaning of the statute. Defendant claimed his plea of no contest to a municipal violation was not a conviction. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, stating that ORS 135.345, which details that "a judgment [for a crime] following entry of a no contest please is a conviction", also similarly applies to violations. Reversed

Advanced Search