Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Licari

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 26, 2014

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TIMOTHY JEROME LICARI, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted: January 30, 2013.

Clatsop County Circuit Court. 106233. Paula Brownhill, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Susan Fair Drake, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Laura S. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Duncan, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Schuman, Senior Judge.

OPINION

Page 569

[261 Or.App. 806] DEVORE, J.

In this criminal proceeding, defendant appeals a judgment of conviction, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion for a continuance, made on the morning of trial. We affirm.

The facts that relate to the issue in this case are largely undisputed. On September 12, 2010, two Seaside police officers responded to a call from an alcohol recovery facility about an intoxicated male. The officers found defendant intoxicated and belligerent. The officers placed defendant in custody, and, while defendant was being transported, he refused the officers' instructions, made threatening remarks, and kicked off the vehicle's dome light. Defendant's behavior continued at the city jail and during subsequent transport to the county jail. Portions of defendant's arrest and transport were captured on video cameras mounted on the vehicle and in the jail. Defendant was charged with resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, attempted assault of a public safety officer, ORS 163.208, second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354, and second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025.

Defendant was arraigned, and defense counsel was appointed on September 13. Trial was set for November 2. At a scheduling conference on October 8, defendant was present with his attorney. The extent to which defendant and counsel were able to confer on that occasion is not evident in the record. The transcript does show that defense counsel requested a postponement of the trial date to the end of November to allow time to prepare. Defense counsel explained that he had a Measure 11 trial at the end of October, but he allowed that an additional week to prepare would be sufficient. The court set a trial date of November 9. On November 4, at a pretrial docket call, defendant was not present since he was being held out of town. The court asked defense counsel if he had been in contact with defendant. Counsel responded that he had had contact, but it had been difficult, because defendant was lodged in the Tillamook County Jail where they reportedly could not " have private [261 Or.App. 807] conversations." Defense counsel said that " some defendants do not like to speak, and it's hard to arrange that."

On the morning of trial, November 9, defense counsel requested another continuance. He explained that, because defendant had been held in the Tillamook County Jail, they had been unable to have " meaningful one-on-one

Page 570

contact without the fear that [their] conversations were being monitored, as [the jail] always announce[s] they are[.]" Defendant had been at the Tillamook County jail until the weekend before the Tuesday trial. Defense counsel contended that he was unable to determine potential psychological issues until he met with defendant on the day before trial. Defense counsel said that he had watched the videos from the police vehicle and the jail several times [1] but could not find what had set defendant off. It was only after speaking with defendant's mother and consulting with defendant in person that counsel began to suspect that defendant might suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The disorder, he argued, could be relevant to whether defendant was capable of forming the criminal intent necessary for three of the charges against him. Defense counsel said:

" [I]t wasn't until I met with him last night, * * * that I realized that if I was going to have a go at this case it was going to be on the mental state defense and try and connect the dots in a way I'm not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.