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. Sepulveda

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 1, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JULIO CESAR SEPULVEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted December 19, 2016

         Washington County Circuit Court C141818CR Rick Knapp, Judge.

          John Evans, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a purported unlawful arrest. Defendant argues that he was arrested without probable cause when deputies continued to detain him in handcuffs after officer safety concerns had dissipated. In response, the state argues that defendant failed to preserve the argument he now raises on appeal. Held: Because defendant's motion to suppress and his closing argument gave his "opponents and the trial court enough information to be able to understand [his] contention and to fairly respond to it, " defendant preserved the argument that he raised on appeal. State v. Walker, 350 Or. 540, 552, 258 P.3d 1228 (2011). On the merits, the deputies lacked probable cause to arrest defendant after the frisk revealed that he was not armed. As a result, the arrest was unlawful and the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [288 Or. 633] TOOKEY, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.890, and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of a purported unlawful arrest. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

         We review a trial court's denial of a defendant's motion to suppress for legal error and are bound by the trial court's express and implied findings of fact, if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support them. State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993). We recite the facts in accordance with that standard.

         Just before midnight in August 2014, Deputies Dunn and Wood were responding to reports of a gang-related disturbance. One report indicated that there were possible shots fired in the area, and another report indicated that there was a possible gang fight "and someone was chasing another person down the street with a baseball bat." Dunn and Wood, who were both on bike patrol, rode toward the vicinity of the reported location.

         Dunn and Wood encountered defendant walking briskly parallel to, and four blocks west of, the location of the reported disturbance. Defendant was talking on his cell phone and looking around; according to Dunn, defendant "just seemed very suspicious. He was kind of sweaty * * * and it looked like he had been running or attempting to hide from police * * * [b]ecause * * * there was a lot of police activity in the area."

         As the deputies approached defendant, Dunn announced, "Sheriff's Office, " in a loud, commanding voice and pointed his flashlight at defendant. In response, defendant "quickly bladed up his stance, [and] moved his right foot to the rear. [Defendant] also took his right hand [which was holding his cell phone] and reached near the area of his back right pocket." Believing defendant's bladed stance to be a fight or flight movement and that defendant may have been reaching for a weapon, the deputies drew their [288 Or. 634] firearms. Dunn commanded defendant to raise his hands in the air and get on his knees. Defendant complied with Dunn's commands, and Wood handcuffed defendant. Wood frisked defendant for weapons and did not find any. Following the frisk, defendant remained handcuffed.

         Dunn advised defendant of his Miranda rights, which defendant said he understood. Wood then requested and obtained defendant's consent to search his pockets. Evidence obtained from that search resulted in defendant being charged with ...


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.