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. Chelemedos

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 7, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL ANDREW CHELEMEDOS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Lane County Circuit Court 201404292; A157452 Maurice K. Merten, Judge.

          Submitted March 29, 2016

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Lindsey Burrows, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Karla H. Ferrall, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) and driving while suspended (DWS), raising two assignments of error. First, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. Second, defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the DWS count because the statute of limitations period had expired.

         Held: Because defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice that would warrant dismissal of the charges, defendant was not denied a speedy trial in violation of Article 1, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Furthermore, because defendant did not preserve his second assignment of error, the Court of Appeals declined to review that unpre-served claim of error.

         Affirmed

          TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.011, and driving while suspended (DWS), ORS 811.182. Defendant raises two assignments of error. In his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the DWS count because the statute of limitations period had expired. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         The facts are largely procedural and stem from two separate case numbers. On March 4, 2012, Lane County Sherriff's Deputy Jahn stopped defendant for a headlight violation. Jahn subsequently arrested defendant for DUII and DWS. Defendant had previously been convicted of DUII in Lane County in 2011 and in Washington in 2002.

         Case No 201204608: On March 5, 2012, the state filed an information alleging that defendant had committed DWS and felony DUII. However, on March 26, the state dismissed the information pending a grand jury indictment. Defendant, who had been held in custody since his arrest, was released upon the state's dismissal of the information.

         On November 5, 2012, a grand jury indicted defendant. When defendant did not appear for his arraignment, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest and defendant was subsequently arrested on the warrant on December 20. Defendant's trial was set for February 13, 2013; however, the day before trial was set to begin, the lead prosecutor sustained injuries in a car accident, and the state moved to postpone the trial. Defendant opposed the state's motion to postpone, arguing that defendant had been in custody since his December 20 arrest. The trial court granted the state's motion to postpone.

         On February 15, 2013, at a pretrial hearing, the trial court ruled that evidence regarding defendant's out-of-state Washington DUII conviction was inadmissible and the state requested leave to file an interlocutory appeal. The trial court granted the state's request and ordered defendant to be released from custody. On April 18, 2013, the state ...


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.