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. Beleke

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 23, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DANIEL WAYNE BELEKE, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted November 15, 2016

         Lane County Circuit Court 15CN01344, 15CR18564; Maurice K. Merten, Judge.

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

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and James, Judge. [*]

          Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment finding him in contempt of court for violating a restraining order by entering the victim's apartment. Defendant acknowledges that he knew that the restraining order existed and that it prohibited him from being in the apartment. He argues, however, that the contempt charge required proof that defendant acted with "bad intent, " and that because no such showing was made-that is, defendant believed that a probation officer gave him permission to be in the apartment-the trial court erred in finding him in contempt.

         Held: The trial court did not err in finding defendant in contempt. To prove contempt, the state must establish the existence of a valid court order, the defendant's knowledge of that order, and the defendant's willful noncompliance with that order. Drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the state, a rational trier of fact could infer that defendant understood that he remained subject to the restraining order, or, in the alternative, that he had not obtained genuine "permission" to enter the apartment.

         Affirmed.

         [287 Or. 419]GARRETT, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment finding him in contempt of court and a judgment revoking his probation on his convictions for multiple domestic violence offenses, both of which the trial court entered after defendant violated a restraining order by entering the victim's apartment. Defendant acknowledges that he knew that the restraining order existed and that it prohibited him from being in the apartment. He argues, however, that both the contempt charge and the probation revocation required proof that defendant acted with "bad intent, " and that because no such showing was made-that is, defendant believed that a probation officer gave him permission to be in the apartment-the trial court erred in finding him in contempt and revoking his probation. As to the revocation of probation, we reject defendant's arguments without discussion. As to contempt, for the reasons explained below, we reject defendant's arguments on appeal. We therefore affirm.

         The facts are not in dispute. On May 8, 2015, as a result of a domestic-violence incident one day earlier, a restraining order was entered that prohibited defendant from contacting the victim or coming within 200 feet of her or her residence, and further required defendant to "move from and not return to" the apartment that he and the victim shared in Springfield. Three weeks later, on May 29, defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of multiple domestic-violence offenses. The parties stipulated to a downward-departure sentence of 36 months' probation. At the sentencing hearing, the state noted the existing restraining order, which, by its terms, was to remain in place for one year. The trial court then imposed several special conditions of probation, including that defendant could not have contact with the victim or knowingly be within 1, 000 feet of her residence without prior written permission from his probation officer. The court also, however, specifically instructed defendant that he had to comply with any existing protective orders against him.

         On June 2, defendant met with an intake officer, Shreve, at the probation department for approximately five minutes. Shreve was not defendant's probation officer and [287 Or. 420] did not have any information about defendant's case other than that it was a domestic-violence case. Defendant did not inform Shreve that the May 8 restraining order was in place. Shreve asked defendant what his address was, and defendant gave the address of the Springfield apartment. Shreve asked if the victim lived there. Defendant replied, "Well, no, I live there. That's my house." Shreve then stated: "Well, you have to stay at The Mission, that's your only approved residence, unless that victim doesn't live there." At the conclusion of their meeting, defendant and Shreve signed an "Action Plan" that stated, in part:

"No contact with victim.
"Stay at Mission or [Springfield apartment] if victim is not at [Springfield apartment]. I will stay at that ...

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.