State v. Torres, 97 P.3d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · Go Syfert
State v. Torres, 97 P.3d 691 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Reynolds (orctapp, 2012-06-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Reynolds
Or. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for judgment of acquittal does not automatically encompass a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. the motion must state the specific theory on which the state's proof was insufficient.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Schoen (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
a motion for judgment of acquittal does not automatically encompass a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. the motion must state the specific theory on which the state's proof was insufficient.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. DuBois
Or. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a motion for judgment of acquittal does 654 not automatically encompass a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. the motion must state the specific theory on which the state's proof was insufficient.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RIVERA-MENDOZA (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
unknown court · 2020 · confidence medium
The court emphasized that a conviction for child neglect is based on the totality of the circumstances, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt “(1) that leaving the child unattended was likely to endanger her health or welfare, (2) that the risk of that harm occurring was substantial and unjustifiable, and (3) that the defendant’s lack of awareness of that risk was a gross deviation from the normal standard of care.” Id. at 83 (emphases added) (quoting State v. Paragon, 97 P.3d 691, 694 (Or.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Campbell
Or. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265, 268 , 97 P3d 691 (2004) (motion for judgment of acquittal must state specific theory on which state’s proof was insufficient); State v. Schodrow, 187 Or App 224 , 231 n 5, 66 P3d 547 (2003) (general motion for judgment of acquittal without specifying theory on which state’s proof was insufficient preserves no ground for challenge on appeal).
cited Cited "see" State v. Negrete
Or. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Paragon, 195 Or App 265, 270 , 97 P3d 691 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON
v.
JUAN TORRES
C021062CR; A120071.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Sep 15, 2004.
97 P.3d 691
2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 1159
James Varner filed the brief for appellant., Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Brewer, Landau.
Published
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (4)
LANDAU, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, ORS 164.415, robbery in the second degree, ORS 164.405, and kidnapping in the first degree, ORS 163.235, among other crimes. Pursuant to ORS 137.700, the trial court sentenced defendant to, respectively, 90 months, 70 months, and 90 months of imprisonment for those convictions and ordered that he serve 54 months of the kidnapping sentence consecutively to his 90-month sentence for first-degree robbery. The court also imposed a 60-month firearm minimum on each of the two robbery convictions. ORS 161.610.

Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the first-degree kidnapping charge, in ordering that his sentence on that charge be served consecutively in part to his sentence for robbery in the first degree, and in imposing firearm minimums on his robbery convictions. The state contests defendant’s first two assignments of error. As to defendant’s third assignment of error, the state concedes that the record does not support a finding that defendant personally used or threatened to use a firearm in the commission of the offenses and that the trial court therefore erred in imposing firearm mínimums on defendant’s robbery convictions. It requests that we remand the case for entry of a corrected judgment.

We reject defendant’s first two assignments of error without discussion. We agree, however, that the trial court erred as argued in defendant’s third assignment of error. We therefore accept the state’s concession as to that error and remand to the trial court with instructions to modify the judgment accordingly.

Remanded for modification of judgment by deletion of ORS 161.610 sentences; otherwise affirmed.