State v. Bateman
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Dissent
WARDEN, J. pro tempore,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that defendant may appeal from the documents by which the trial court revoked his probation and either sentenced him to prison or required him to begin serving the sentence that the court had previously imposed. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that ORS 138.050 so limits the scope of our review on direct appeal that we may not consider the validity of the probation revocation. That conclusion is inconsistent with our previous practice and incorrectly construes the statute. If the majority is right as a matter of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Huffman v. AlexanderOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- State v. MartinOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. LudwigOregon Supreme Court · 1959
- State v. HovaterCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978
- State v. HaynesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.