State v. Qualls

• Docket Number: A175874
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHNNY LEE QUALLS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

1

329 Or.App. 805

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHNNY LEE QUALLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A175874

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 28, 2023

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Submitted February 27, 2023

Lane County Circuit Court 21CR05773, 20CR47513; A175874 (Control), Charles M. Zennaché, Judge.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Hellman, Judge.

Portion of judgment requiring defendant to pay $25 probation-violation fee reversed; otherwise affrmed.

2

[329 Or.App. 806] POWERS, J.

In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of assault in the fourth degree constituting domestic violence (ORS 163.160(3)) in Case No. 21CR05773 and a judgment following the revocation of his probation in Case No. 20CR47513. In three assignments of error, defendant challenges the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA), the revocation of his probation, and the imposition of a $25 probation-violation fee. In the first two assignments of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying the MJOA because there was insufficient evidence of the "physical injury" element of fourth-degree assault. Relatedly, defendant argues that the trial court erred in revoking probation based on his conviction. In the third assignment of error, defendant contends that the court erred in imposing a $25 probation-violation fee because the court did not orally pronounce the fee on the record at sentencing before imposing it in the judgment. As explained below, we conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence of a physical injury. We further conclude that the court erred when it imposed the $25 probation-violation fee. Accordingly, we reverse the $25 probation-violation fee and otherwise affirm.

We begin with defendant's challenge to the denial of the MJOA. We review the denial of an MJOA by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cunningham, 320 Or. 47, 63, 880 P.2d 431 (1994), cert den, 514 U.S. 1005 (1995). Because the parties are familiar with the procedural and factual background, we set out in this...