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. Bladorn

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 22, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MATTHEW J. BLADORN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted December 22, 2015.

         Coos County Circuit Court 13CR1283; Richard L. Barron, Judge.

          Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Erin Snyder, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He was charged with those crimes after a state trooper found three guns in defendant's Jeep following a traffic stop. On appeal, defendant acknowledges that the trooper permissibly searched for, and found, one of the weapons, but challenges his convictions on Counts 2 and 3, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the trooper's continued search of the Jeep, which revealed two of the guns.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err. Under State v. Anfeld, 313 Or. 554, 836 P.2d 1337 (1992), the officer's search of defendant's Jeep for additional weapons was permissible as a search incident to his arrest for unlawful possession of a firearm.

         Affirmed.

         [289 Or.App. 2] HADLOCK, C. J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He was charged with those crimes after a state trooper found three guns in defendant's Jeep following a traffic stop. Defendant acknowledges that the trooper permissibly searched for, and found, one of those weapons-a handgun that was concealed beneath clothing on the front seat of the Jeep. Accordingly, he does not challenge his conviction for possessing that gun (Count 1). However, defendant challenges his convictions on Counts 2 and 3, contending that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found during the trooper's further search of the Jeep, which revealed the other two guns. For the reasons set out below, we reject defendant's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion. Defendant also makes an unpreserved argument that the trial court should have merged the determinations of guilt on Counts 2 and 3 into a single conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm. We reject that argument without discussion. Accordingly, we affirm.

         In considering the denial of defendant's suppression motion, we review for legal error, "accepting the facts as found by the trial court, so long as there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings." State v. Jones, 286 Or.App. 562, 564, 401 P.3d 271 (2017). "To the extent that the trial court did not make findings on a particular issue, and there is evidence from which the facts could be found more than one way, we presume that the trial court found the facts consistently with its ultimate determination." Id. We set out the facts in accordance with that standard.

         While on patrol, Oregon State Trooper Timm saw a Jeep traveling faster than the posted speed limit. Timm "turned around to initiate a traffic stop on that vehicle" and, as he caught up with the Jeep, saw the driver- defendant-"doing a lot of motion in the vehicle beyond what you would normally see, " including "leaning down as ...


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.