State v. Ringler
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtEgan, J.
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. ORS 475.890. He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a continuance.1 We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion. Therefore, we affirm.
We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. “Discretion refers to the authority of a trial court to choose among several legally correct outcomes. If the trial court’s decision was within the range of legally correct discretionary choices and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. HickeyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
- State v. FerraroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- State v. KeerinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- Phillips v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016