455 P.3d 485
Or.2019Background
- Consolidated appeals from Oregon Supreme Court: State v. Guzman and State v. Heckler—both charged with felony DUII under ORS 813.011 based on two out‑of‑state prior DUI convictions.
- Guzman: 2015 Kansas conviction under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8‑1567(a) admitted at trial as a qualifying prior; convicted of felony DUII; appealed denial of motion to exclude that prior.
- Heckler: two Colorado convictions (2006, 2010) under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42‑4‑1301(1)(b) (DWAI) were admitted pretrial; he entered a conditional no‑contest plea preserving the issue.
- Central legal question: whether a foreign conviction is a "statutory counterpart" to ORS 813.010 for purposes of ORS 813.011—i.e., whether the foreign offense’s elements closely match ORS 813.010.
- Trial courts denied motions to exclude priors; Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the cases.
- Holding: the appropriate test is close element matching; the Kansas and Colorado prior convictions at issue are not statutory counterparts to ORS 813.010; judgments reversed and remanded (Guzman to misdemeanor disposition as agreed; Heckler may withdraw plea).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "statutory counterpart" in ORS 813.011 | Voters would have understood the term per 2007–2010 Court of Appeals decisions (Mersman/Rawleigh) to permit statutes with the same "use, role, or characteristics." | Term should be read narrowly: only foreign offenses with elements the same or nearly the same as ORS 813.010 qualify (close element matching). | "Statutory counterpart" requires close element matching — elements must be the same as or nearly the same as ORS 813.010. |
| Precedential weight of State v. Carlton | N/A (state did not dispute Carlton’s relevance) | Carlton supports a presumption favoring narrow, element‑based matching for foreign convictions. | Carlton governs: when statutes count foreign convictions, a close element‑matching approach is the default absent contrary text/context. |
| Relevance of Court of Appeals decisions (Mersman, Rawleigh, Donovan) | Those decisions reflected a broader understanding and should inform voter intent in 2010. | Prior Court of Appeals decisions do not overcome the text, consistent usage across many DUI statutes, and Carlton’s presumption of narrow matching. | Court of Appeals decisions do not control; broader readings do not outweigh statutory text, consistent statutory usage, and Carlton. |
| Application to the Kansas and Colorado priors | KS and CO priors are sufficiently similar to ORS 813.010 to qualify. | KS (§ 8‑1567) criminalizes "attempting to operate" (broader than Oregon); CO DWAI criminalizes even "slightest degree" impairment (broader than Oregon's "perceptible degree" or .08 BAC). | Kan. Stat. § 8‑1567(a) disqualified because it covers attempts not treated as equally culpable in Oregon; Colo. § 42‑4‑1301(1)(b) disqualified because it criminalizes imperceptible impairment. Both priors are not statutory counterparts. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carlton, 361 Or 29 (2017) (adopts close element‑matching presumption when Oregon law gives legal effect to foreign convictions)
- State v. Mersman, 216 Or App 194 (2007) (Court of Appeals held a foreign DUI statute shared the same "use, role, or characteristics")
- State v. Rawleigh, 222 Or App 121 (2008) (applied Mersman to DUI diversion context)
- State v. Donovan, 243 Or App 187 (2011) (interpreted 2007 statutory amendments expanding how foreign DUI conduct could be counted)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury except prior‑conviction exception)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (federal rule requiring element‑based comparison for certain sentence enhancements)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (distinguishes element‑based inquiry from factfinding when counting prior convictions)