138.697 Appeal
of court order.
(1) A person described in ORS 138.690 may appeal to the Court of Appeals from a
circuit court’s final order or judgment denying or limiting DNA testing under
ORS 138.692, denying appointment of counsel under ORS 138.694 or denying a
motion for a new trial under ORS 138.696.
(2) The state may
appeal to the Court of Appeals from a circuit court’s final order or judgment
granting a motion for DNA testing under ORS 138.692 or granting a motion for a
new trial under ORS 138.696.
(3) The time
limits described in ORS 138.071, the notice requirements described in ORS
138.081 and 138.090 and the provisions of ORS 138.225, 138.227, 138.255 and
138.257 apply to appeals under this section unless the context requires
otherwise.
(4) A circuit
court shall appoint counsel to represent a person described in ORS 138.690 on
appeal in the same manner as for criminal defendants under ORS 138.500. [2013
c.152 §1; 2015 c.564 §5; 2017 c.529 §25; 2019 c.368 §9]
Note: See note under 138.688.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Diaz-Avalos, 428 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 19× “Thus, we concluded that "we [were] without jurisdiction" to consider an appeal that a defendant had purported to take from such an order.”
State v. Harris, 358 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 9× “The primary issue is whether an order that authorizes DNA testing, but bars the defendant from later “collaterally attacking” the defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence if the testing does not result in exculpatory evidence, is a “limit” on DNA testing such that the…”
State v. Johnson, 374 P.3d 998 (Multnomah Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 3× “692,” such that the order was appealable under ORS 138.697. 272 Or App at 777 . 14 defendant contended that it was.”
State v. Rogers, 386 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “) ORS 138.697, conferring appellate jurisdiction with respect to, inter alia, post-judgment orders denying testing pursuant to ORS 138.”
State v. Couch, 371 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In response to Johnson, the legislature enacted ORS 138.697 in 2013, authorizing appeal to the Court of Appeals of trial court orders or judgments denying or limiting DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Mendoza, 386 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“The response stated: “[Y]ou were found guilty at trial and, after being sentenced to the Department of Corrections, this court no longer has jurisdiction to take action on your requests which include DNA testing, I will see that your correspondence is made part of the court’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.697(1) — 3 cases
State v. Harris, 358 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“The primary issue is whether an order that authorizes DNA testing, but bars the defendant from later “collaterally attacking” the defendant’s judgment of conviction and sentence if the testing does not result in exculpatory evidence, is a “limit” on DNA testing such that the…”
State v. Diaz-Avalos, 428 P.3d 932 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“Thus, we concluded that "we [were] without jurisdiction" to consider an appeal that a defendant had purported to take from such an order.”
State v. Rogers, 386 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“) ORS 138.697, conferring appellate jurisdiction with respect to, inter alia, post-judgment orders denying testing pursuant to ORS 138.”
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.