138.057 Appeal
from judgment involving violation.
(1) If a justice court or municipal court has become a court of record under
ORS 51.025 or 221.342, an appeal from a judgment involving a violation shall be
as provided in ORS chapter 19 for appeals from judgments entered by circuit
courts, except that the standard of review is the same as for an appeal from a
judgment in a proceeding involving a misdemeanor or felony.
(2)(a) If a
justice court or municipal court has not become a court of record under ORS
51.025 or 221.342, the appeal from a judgment involving a violation entered by
the justice court or municipal court may be taken to the circuit court for the
county in which the justice court or municipal court is located as follows:
(A) For a justice
court, as provided in ORS 55.160 to 55.335; and
(B) For a
municipal court, as provided in ORS 221.369 to 221.407.
(b) No
undertaking shall be required of the party filing a notice of appeal under the
provisions of this subsection.
(3)(a) Subject to
the provisions of this subsection, an appeal from a judgment involving a
violation entered by a circuit court may be taken as provided in ORS chapter
19.
(b) For the
purpose of meeting the requirements imposed by ORS 19.240, the copy of the
notice of appeal must be served on:
(A) The city
attorney, if the appeal is made by the defendant from a decision initially made
in a municipal court.
(B) The district
attorney for the county, if the appeal is made by the defendant from a decision
initially made in a justice court.
(c)
Notwithstanding ORS 19.270, timely service on the city attorney or district
attorney under the provisions of this subsection is not jurisdictional and the
Court of Appeals may extend the time for that service.
(d)
Notwithstanding any provision of ORS chapter 19, an undertaking on appeal is
not required for an appeal from a judgment involving a violation.
(e)(A) The filing
of a notice of an appeal from a judgment involving a violation does not act to
automatically stay the judgment.
(B) Nothing in
this paragraph is intended to affect the authority of the circuit court to stay
enforcement of the judgment under ORS 19.350, 138.285 or 138.295 or any other
authority.
(f) The standard
of review for an appeal under this subsection is the same as for an appeal from
a judgment in a proceeding involving a misdemeanor or felony.
(g) In any case
in which only violations are charged, the state may not appeal from an order
dismissing the case that is entered by reason of a police officer’s failure to
appear at the trial of the matter if the police officer was timely provided
with notice of the trial date. [1993 c.379 §5; 1995 c.658 §79; 1997 c.389 §12;
1999 c.682 §11; 2005 c.266 §2; 2025 c.268 §33]
Note: 138.057 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 138
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
138.060 [Amended by 1963 c.385 §1; 1969
c.198 §64; 1969 c.529 §1; 1971 c.644 §1; 1973 c.836 §276; 1977 c.752 §2; 1989
c.790 §21a; 1997 c.852 §11; 1999 c.946 §2; 2001 c.870 §4; 2011 c.379 §1; 2017
c.529 §4; renumbered 138.045 in 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case:
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 21× “359, regardless of any charter provision or ordinance prohibiting appeals from the municipal court because of the amount of the penalty or otherwise.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison, 333 Or. App. 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013).
“053, ORS 138.057, ORS 138.060, and ORS 147.535(l)(b) (governing appeals to the Court of Appeals in criminal cases and stating persons who may appeal and under what circumstances).”
Westhaven, LLC v. City of Dayton, 504 P.3d 1279 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “The City of Dayton moved to dismiss Westhaven’s petition, arguing that the writ of review process was inapplicable to this case and that ORS 138.057 governed appeals of a municipal court decision.”
State v. Bainbridge, 216 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“” ORS 138.057(l)(a). We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the [violation]…”
State v. Jackson, 507 P.3d 727 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Defendant appeals that judgment, ORS 138.057, assigning error to the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the citation based on ORS 810.”
State v. Muyingo, 200 P.3d 601 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 138.057(3) provides that, “[i]n any case in which only violations are charged,” the state’s ability to appeal is limited in certain respects.”
State v. Chen, 338 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” ORS 138.057(l)(a). When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the…”
City of Eugene v. Hejazi, 437 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “In that case, we recognized that " ORS 138.057 appears to confer an unqualified right to appeal to this court from convictions for violations in municipal court," but we held that, even so, "in the circumstances presented here- viz.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 9× “121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
State v. Walker, 466 P.3d 689 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “121(1) (providing for appeals from justice courts in violation cases); ORS 138.057 (setting Cite as 304 Or App 33 (2020) 35 forth appeal procedure).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(1) — 1 case
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“359, regardless of any charter provision or ordinance prohibiting appeals from the municipal court because of the amount of the penalty or otherwise.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(1)(a) — 4 cases
City of Eugene v. Morrison, 333 Or. App. 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(1)(f) — 4 cases
City of Eugene v. Morrison, 333 Or. App. 730 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
City of Eugene v. Morrison (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“121 and ORS 138.057. Second, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer because his alleged conduct did not constitute an offense.”
State v. Walker, 466 P.3d 689 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“121(1) (providing for appeals from justice courts in violation cases); ORS 138.057 (setting Cite as 304 Or App 33 (2020) 35 forth appeal procedure).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(2) — 2 cases
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“359, regardless of any charter provision or ordinance prohibiting appeals from the municipal court because of the amount of the penalty or otherwise.”
City of Eugene v. Hejazi, 437 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“In that case, we recognized that " ORS 138.057 appears to confer an unqualified right to appeal to this court from convictions for violations in municipal court," but we held that, even so, "in the circumstances presented here- viz.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(3) — 1 case
State v. Muyingo, 200 P.3d 601 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“ORS 138.057(3) provides that, “[i]n any case in which only violations are charged,” the state’s ability to appeal is limited in certain respects.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.057(l)(a) — 3 cases
City of Lowell v. Wilson, 105 P.3d 856 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“359, regardless of any charter provision or ordinance prohibiting appeals from the municipal court because of the amount of the penalty or otherwise.”
State v. Bainbridge, 216 P.3d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
“” ORS 138.057(l)(a). We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether “any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the [violation]…”
State v. Chen, 338 P.3d 795 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” ORS 138.057(l)(a). When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction, we examine the evidence “in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.