Legal Opinion
State v. Fettel
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided January 3, 2007No. MI050257; A131427PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchuman, J.
Defendant appeals from a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. The state has moved to dismiss this appeal under ORAP 8.05(3) on the ground that defendant absconded from supervision. That rule provides:
“If a defendant in a criminal case, * * * on appeal of an adverse decision, escapes or absconds from custody or supervision, the respondent on appeal may move for dismissal of the appeal. If the appellant has not surrendered at the time the motion is decided by the court, the court may dismiss the appeal or judicial review.”
Defendant’s response to the state’s motion is based…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. FordCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2006
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. RAIBURNSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
- State v. MossOregon Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. MossOregon Supreme Court · 2012