Legal Opinion

State v. Ringler

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided August 6, 2014No. 201104280; A149050PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  2. State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. HickeyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  4. State v. FerraroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  5. State v. KeerinsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  2. Phillips v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API