green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
22.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Generally, an appellate court will not consider an unpreserved issue on appeal.”
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stuckrath v. Brown
generally, an appellate court will not consider an unpreserved issue on appeal.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Simkins
there is, in short, no reason to deny review where it would result in more unnecessary proceedings and, ultimately, less judicial efficiency.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Randy Allen Crawford
App. P. 2)); State v. Reynolds, 280 P.3d 1046, 1052 (Or.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Lacallo
See, eg., Ziegler v. State, 886 So.2d 127, 143 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Shafer v. State, 456 P.2d 466, 467-68 (Alaska 1969); Monroe v. State, 652 A.2d 560, 563 (Del.1995); Brannon v. United States, 43 A.3d 936, 939 (D.C.2012); State v. Rodrigues, 6 Haw.App. 580 , 733 P.2d 1222, 1223 (1987); People v. Horn, 279 Mich.App. 31 , 755 N.W.2d 212, 220 (2008); Jones v. State, 724 So.2d 427, 430 (Miss.Ct.App.1998); State v. Swinford, 677 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Mo.Ct.App.1984); State v. Thompson, 244 Neb. 375 , 507 N.W.2d 253, 270 (1993); State v. Bullitt, 166 Ohio App.3d 365 , 850 N.E.2d 801, 804 (2006); State v…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Zamora-Chona
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Mead…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Zamora-Chona
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520-21 , 280 P3d 1046, rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (even when plain error conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it by considering relevant fac- tors, including “the competing interests of the parties; the nature of the case; the gravity of the error; the ends of jus- tice in the particular case; how the error came to the court’s attention; and whether the policies behind the general rule requiring preservation of error have been served in the case in another way * * *.” (Quoting Ailes v. Portland Mead…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 522 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (exercis- ing discretion based on the constitutional magnitude of a felony conviction, even though the conviction would not have increased the sentence).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Johnson
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 522 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (exercis- ing discretion based on the constitutional magnitude of a felony conviction, even though the conviction would not have increased the sentence).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Taylor
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 519 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (treating a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argu- ment as unpreserved, where the defendant made an MJOA on all counts without argument, and the trial court denied it on all counts with a general statement that the evidence was sufficient).
discussed
Cited "see"
Frost v. State of Oregon
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 523-24 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (analyzing purposes of preservation as factor when deciding to correct plain error).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Newton
“No matter claimed as error will be considered on appeal unless the claimed error was preserved in the lower court.” ORAP 5.45(1); see State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 519 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012).
cited
Cited "see"
Drake v. Alonso
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 519 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Strouse
See generally, State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (describing and applying “plain error” methodology in analogous circumstance).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Inman
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 522 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Tilden
See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520 , 280 P3d 1046 (2012) (so holding); State v. Inloes, 239 Or App 49 , 243 P3d 862 (2010) (reviewing insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction as error apparent on the record).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stone
See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 522 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (sim- ilarly concluding that it was appropriate to exercise discre- tion to correct a plain error where the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stone
See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 522 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (sim- ilarly concluding that it was appropriate to exercise discre- tion to correct a plain error where the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kitzmiller
See Baker, 325 Or App at 371 (reversing a second-degree theft conviction after concluding that “we cannot be certain that the jury would have concluded that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the property—which turned out to be worth about $165—would be worth more than $100”); see also State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 521-23 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (exercising discretion to correct plain error because entry of a criminal conviction without sufficient proof is a grave error of constitutional magnitude).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kitzmiller
See Baker, 325 Or App at 371 (reversing a second-degree theft conviction after concluding that “we cannot be certain that the jury would have concluded that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the property—which turned out to be worth about $165—would be worth more than $100”); see also State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 521-23 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (exercising discretion to correct plain error because entry of a criminal conviction without sufficient proof is a grave error of constitutional magnitude).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gayman
Vanornum, 354 Or at 630 (so stat- ing); Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 6 (identifying several factors for consideration when deciding whether to correct a plain error); see also State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 521 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (discussing additional factors used to determine whether to exercise discretion to reach a plain error).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Adams
See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 521-26 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (discussing exercise of discretion to reverse conviction when defendant effectively failed to move for judgment of acquittal).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
ANTHONY JAMES CALHOUN
v.
ANTHONY JAMES CALHOUN
10C44232; A147097.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Jun 13, 2012.
Kenneth A. Kreuscher and Portland Law Collective, LLP, filed the brief for appellant., John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Armstrong, Brewer, Duncan.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of one count each of unlawful possession of methamphetamine (Count 1) and driving under the influence of intoxicants, (Count 2). On Count 1, the trial court imposed an upward dispositional departure sentence of six months in jail with 12 months’ post-prison supervision on the basis of two enhancement facts — viz., “prior sanctions not deterring [defendant’s] conduct” and “the harm was potentially much greater than is typical.” On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred in imposing a departure sentence on Count 1 because the state failed to provide notice of the sentence-enhancement facts as required by ORS 136.765 (2009), amended by Or Laws 2011, ch 267, § 1, which provided:
“In order to rely on an enhancement fact to increase the sentence that may be imposed in a criminal proceeding, the state shall notify the defendant of its intention to rely on the enhancement fact by:
“(1) Pleading the enhancement fact in the accusatory instrument; or
“(2) Within a reasonable time after filing the accusatory instrument, providing written notice to the defendant of the enhancement fact and the state’s intention to rely on it.”
The state concedes that it failed to provide the required notice in this case. We agree and accept the state’s concession. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.