- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 10-26-2016
- Case #: A157858
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Egan, J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) under ORS 813.010(5). Defendant raised several assignment of error; the Court only considered his arguments that the trial court erred when it denied what was, in essence, a motion for a judgment of acquittal on the DUII charge. Defendant contended the trial court erred in construing the term “convicted” to include a DUII charge from California, to which Defendant had pleaded no contest. The California court had suspended imposition of a judgment and sentence and placed Defendant on probation. On appeal, Defendant argued “convicted” in ORS 813.010(5) means a court has entered a judgment of conviction, and because the California court did not enter a judgment of conviction it did not qualify as competent evidence of “conviction” in the instant case. The State argued “conviction” means a finding of guilt, and because the California court had accepted Defendant’s no-contest plea and imposed probation, it was sufficient evidence of a qualifying conviction. After analysis of the statutory construction of ORS 813.010(5), and relying on cases construing the term “convicted,” the Court held that, in the absence of legislative history indicating otherwise, “convicted” in ORS 813.010(5) means a finding of guilt by plea or verdict for DUII, even if judgment on the finding is suspended. Affirmed.