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. Jacinto-Leiva

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 30, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FELIX ANTONIO JACINTO-LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted February 21, 2017

         Washington County Circuit Court D142203T; Suzanne Upton, Judge.

          Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Sercombe, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the infuence of intoxicants, challenging the trial court's decision to strike his motion to suppress for failing to comply with Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 4.060(1). On appeal, defendant asserts that his motion to suppress satisfed the minimum requirements of that rule by stating only that a search and seizure were conducted without a warrant. Held: Because defendant failed to cite authority upon which his motion to suppress was based as required by UTCR 4.060(1) (a), the trial court did not err in striking the motion.

         Affrmed.

         [287 Or.App. 575] SERCOMBE, S. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, challenging the trial court's decision to strike his motion to suppress for failing to comply with Uniform Trial Court Rule (UTCR) 4.060(1).[1] On appeal, defendant asserts that his motion to suppress satisfied the minimum requirements of the rule by stating only that a search and seizure were conducted without a warrant. He further asserts that, if "UTCR 4.060(1) requires a defendant to allege specific facts demonstrating the illegality of a warrantless search, then that rule contradicts the constitutional requirement that the state prove the legality of a warrantless search." As explained below, we affirm.

         Defendant, who was charged with DUII, filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In the motion, defendant moved for an order "suppressing the warrantless search and seizure of the defendant: the stop of the defendant, search of the defendant, and seizure of any and all evidence obtained as a result therefrom, including the field sobriety tests, intox-ilizer [sic] tests and all oral derivative evidence." Defendant did not file a brief in support of his motion, nor did he cite any constitutional or statutory provision as grounds for the motion. He did, however, assert that he "was subject to a search and seizure without a warrant. Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable and the state has the burden of proving otherwise. State v. Miller, 269 Or. 328');">269 Or. 328 [, 334, 524 P.2d 1399] (1974)."

         The state moved to strike defendant's suppression motion, asserting that it failed to set forth the authorities or arguments relied upon by defendant, as required by UTCR 4.060(1). Defendant filed a written response to the motion to strike, again citing Miller in support of his view that his [287 Or.App. 576] motion to suppress was sufficient. According to defendant, "either the pleading by the defendant in a motion to suppress alleging there was a warrantless search, (1) conforms to the requirements of [UTCR 4.060] or, (2) the validity of the rule is called into question." The court held a hearing on the motion to strike and, ultimately, agreed with the state that defendant's suppression motion in this case failed to satisfy the requirements of UTCR 4.060(1); the court was not persuaded by defendant's contention that, if his motion did not satisfy the rule, the validity of the rule was "called into question." Following a stipulated facts trial, defendant was convicted of DUII.

         We review the trial court's ruling for errors of law. See State v. Roth. 235 Or.App. 441, 449, 234 P.3d 1019 (2010).

         Under UTCR 4.060(1), every motion to suppress evidence must "cite any constitutional provision, statute, rule, case, or other authority upon which it is based" and include a brief that will "sufficiently apprise the court and the adverse party of the arguments relied upon." As noted, defendant asserts that his motion satisfied the requirements of the rule and, thus, the trial court erred in striking it. The state, for its part, contends that defendant failed to "identify the actions that he actually challenged" and "failed to specify the authorities that he relied upon for his motion." In the state's view, the trial court may properly strike a defendant's suppression motion when the defendant has failed "to identify the warrantless searches and seizures challenged, [or] to cite specific authority."

         We agree with the state that, under the circumstances, the trial court did not err in striking the motion. Cf State v. Oxford.287 Or.App. 580, _____ P.3d _____ (2017) (trial court erred in striking, as noncompliant with UTCR 4.060(1), defendant's motion pursuant to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, seeking to suppress evidence, including firearms, an explosive device, and oral derivative evidence, obtained from "the [warrantless] ...


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.