383 P.3d 946
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant was charged and convicted of felony DUII under ORS 813.010(5) (three DUII convictions in prior 10 years).
- State proved three prior DUII offenses; defendant conceded two and challenged the sufficiency of the third (a California DUII matter).
- In the California case defendant pleaded no contest, and the court accepted the plea but suspended imposition of judgment and placed him on probation with 75 days in jail as a probation condition.
- Defendant argued that because no formal judgment of conviction was entered in California, the prior did not qualify as a ‘‘conviction’’ under ORS 813.010(5), and moved (functionally) for judgment of acquittal on the felony count.
- Trial court denied the acquittal motion and convicted; on appeal the court addressed whether ‘‘convicted’’ means a formal entered judgment or a finding of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘‘convicted’’ in ORS 813.010(5) requires a formal entered judgment or includes a finding of guilt (plea/ verdict) | State: ‘‘Convicted’’ means a finding of guilt; a court’s acceptance of a no-contest plea and imposition of probation qualifies as a prior conviction | Defendant: ‘‘Convicted’’ requires a formal judgment of conviction; suspended imposition means no qualifying prior conviction | Court held: For a statute that imposes criminal sanctions, ‘‘convicted’’ includes a finding of guilt even if entry of judgment is suspended; the California plea qualified |
| Whether interpreting ‘‘convicted’’ to mean a finding of guilt conflicts with DUII diversion statutes (which dismiss after successful diversion) | State: No conflict because courts do not enter a finding of guilt when they accept a diversion petition; successful diversion results in dismissal and does not produce a prior conviction | Defendant: Legislative intent shows successful diversion should not create a predicate conviction; therefore ‘‘convicted’’ must mean formal judgment | Court held: No conflict — diversion acceptance with withheld judgment is not a finding of guilt; successful diversion is excluded from prior convictions, so statutory scheme remains consistent |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Courtney, 272 Or. 477 (Or. 1975) (distinguishes two meanings of "convicted": finding of guilt vs. formal judgment; use depends on statutory purpose)
- State v. Turntine, 265 Or. App. 323 (Or. App. 2014) (construed "convicted" in a criminal-sanction statute to include a finding of guilt even without entered judgment)
- State v. Lagrassa, 235 Or. App. 150 (Or. App. 2010) (explains DUII diversion process and statutory mechanics)