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.

Lines v. Washburn

United States District Court, D. Oregon

October 8, 2019

NATHAN C.E. LINES, Petitioner,
v.
SUE WASHBURN, Respondent.

          Nathan C.E. Lines Petitioner, Pro Se

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Samuel A. Kubernick, Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Attorneys for Respondent

          OPINION AND ORDER

          MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of his 2011 Washington County conviction for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants ("DUII"). For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         At approximately 3:00 a.m. on March 14, 2011, Washington County Sheriff's Corporal Patrick Altiere pulled Natasha Sandstrom over based upon driving infractions he witnessed. Petitioner was sitting in the passenger seat. The Officer learned that Sandstrom was driving with an expired license, and told her that she could find someone to drive the car or he would need to tow it from the side of the road. Sandstrom indicated that Petitioner could drive the car. Altiere verified that Petitioner's license was valid, and asked if Petitioner was "okay to drive." Trial Transcript, p. 55. Both Sandstrom and Petitioner nodded their heads. Id.

         Washington County Sheriff's Deputy Eamon O'Reilly arrived on the scene to assist, and witnessed Petitioner get into the driver's seat of the car and pull away. O'Reilly followed, and observed the vehicle drift over the center line and weave within its lane. As a result, O'Reilly pulled Petitioner over. He smelled an odor of alcohol as he approached the car, and observed that Petitioner's eyes were droopy, his face was relaxed, and his speech was slow. Id. at 119.

         Petitioner explained that he had been driving erratically because he had been arguing with Sandstrom regarding her earlier citation for driving with a suspended license. O'Reilly put Petitioner through field sobriety tests, which he failed. O'Reilly arrested Petitioner for DUII and took him to the police station where Petitioner refused to take a breathalyzer test.

         The Washington County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner on one felony count of DUII, and Petitioner proceeded to a jury trial. Petitioner primarily focused his defense on the theory that Officer Altiere entrapped him. Specially, he claimed that Altiere ordered him to drive the car despite being visibly and obviously intoxicated. Defense counsel asked for an entrapment instruction, but the trial court refused to give one and invited an exception to it at the appropriate time. Id. at 301-04. After instructing the jury, the trial judge asked for exceptions to the instructions, but defense counsel responded that he had no exceptions to take. Id. at 345.

         During deliberations, the jury posed two questions pertaining to entrapment, which the judge read into the record:

Essentially the same thing but - the first one reads if an officer does not force but allows someone to drive who he has a suspicion that he may be intoxicated, only then to pull him over later to convict of that charge would that be considered Entrapment? In the case of Entrapment, is the defendant subject to acquittal?

Trial Transcript, p. 346.

         Defense counsel took the opportunity to once again advocate for an entrapment instruction, stating "I'd say give them the instruction for Entrapment. I think that they thought it was a valid issue. I thought it was, they think that it's an issue in the case, so. I'd ask the Court to reconsider and give the Entrapment instruction. Other than that, no answer whatsoever." Id. The trial judge refused to give the instruction and indicated, "The Court's gonna reply on both of these, you may not consider the defense of Entrapment." Id.

         The jury unanimously convicted Petitioner of the DUII charge, and the trial court sentenced him to 24 months in prison to be followed by two years of post-prison supervision. Petitioner took a direct appeal, but the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. ...


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.