State v. Gaines, 040343619.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Writing for the CourtRosenblum
Citation159 P.3d 1291,213 Or. App. 211
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Artissa Dehonda GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number040343619.,A124872.
Decision Date30 May 2007
159 P.3d 1291
213 Or. App. 211
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
Artissa Dehonda GAINES, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
On Appellant's Petition for Reconsideration March 28, 2007.
Decided May 30, 2007.

Multnomah County Circuit Court; Lewis B. Lawrence, Judge.

[159 P.3d 1292]

Harry R. Carson for petition.

Before HASELTON, Presiding Judge, and ARMSTRONG and ROSENBLUM, Judges.


213 Or. App. 213

Defendant seeks reconsideration of our opinion in State v. Gaines, 211 Or.App. 356, 155 P.3d 61 (2007). She argues that we both misstated the facts and misconstrued the law when we affirmed her conviction for obstructing governmental or judicial administration, ORS 162.235. We grant the motion for reconsideration, modify the former opinion, and adhere to the former opinion as modified.

First, defendant argues that we misstated the facts when we twice stated that defendant had been arrested and incarcerated for "an unrelated felony charge" when she violated ORS 162.235. Defendant contends that she was arrested and incarcerated for an unrelated misdemeanor charge. The record does not resolve this factual question. Accordingly, we modify our former opinion to strike the two references to "felony" and to, therefore, indicate that defendant was arrested "on an unrelated charge" and "incarcerated on the charge."

Second, defendant argues that our opinion misstated the facts of State v. Mattila, 77 Or.App. 219, 712 P.2d 832, rev. den., 301 Or. 77, 717 P.2d 632 (1986). Specifically, defendant contends that the defendant in Mattila was never "ordered * * * to remove the crutch" and never "verbally refused to use his body to move something (a crutch)," and thus it was error to analogize that defendant's actions to the actions of defendant in this case. Gaines, 211 Or.App. at 360-61, 155 P.3d 61.

We reject defendant's argument that we misstated the facts of Mattila. The facts as set forth in Mattila established several oral exchanges between the defendant and the officers. The defendant in Mattila "refused to open the door," "refused to [leave the house]," and "refused to remove [the crutch used to wedge the door closed]." 77 Or.App. at 221, 223, 712 P.2d 832. Although Mattila does not specify whether the deputies generally requested that the defendant open the door or whether they specifically asked the defendant to remove the crutch, that lack of specificity is not significant. The defendant in M...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Gaines, (CC 040343619.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 30, 2009
    ...and affirmed defendant's conviction. State v. Gaines, 211 Or.App. 356, 361, 155 P.3d 61, modified and adh'd to as modified on recons, 213 Or.App. 211, 159 P.3d 1291 (2007). As we will explain, we hold that a person's mere failure to act in compliance with a lawful directive, without more, d......
  • State v. Forrest, F11363.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • May 30, 2007 (1) did the trial court apply the correct legal standard and (2) is the trial court's factual determination supported by any evidence 159 P.3d 1291 in the record? Our answer to the first query is in the affirmative. Although the trial court did not expressly define the standard that it ......
  • State v. Gaines, S55031.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • October 18, 2007
    ...P.3d 1268 343 Or. 363 STATE v. GAINES. No. S55031. Supreme Court of Oregon. October 18, 2007. Appeal from (A124872) 213 Or. App. 211, 159 P.3d Petition for review allowed. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT