United States District Court, D. Oregon
NATHAN C.E. LINES, Petitioner,
SUE WASHBURN, Respondent.
C.E. Lines Petitioner, Pro Se
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Samuel A. Kubernick, Assistant
Attorney General Department of Justice Attorneys for
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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. ...