State v. Ralston
| Decision Date | 07 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | A165924 |
| Citation | 310 Or.App. 470,486 P.3d 822 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christopher Shane RALSTON, aka Christopher Wayne Ralston, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Powers, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and James, Judge.
Following a conditional guilty plea, defendant was convicted of felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). ORS 813.010(1) ;1 ORS 813.011. Defendant appeals that judgment, raising two assignments of error. In his first assignment, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because his right to a speedy trial under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution2 was violated from a 14-month delay that resulted in the loss of video evidence. For reasons we later explain, we reject that argument and affirm. In defendant's second assignment, he challenges the trial court's imposition of a $2,255 fine in the judgment when it orally imposed a $2,000 fine at sentencing. We agree with and accept the state's concession that the trial court erred in that regard. We therefore vacate the portion of the judgment imposing the $2,255 fine, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm.
The following facts are largely procedural and undisputed.3 At 12:29 a.m. on June 3, 2016, Officer Nafie stopped defendant's vehicle for failing to maintain a lane. Nafie smelled a strong odor of alcohol and noticed that defendant's eyes were bloodshot and watery and that his speech was slurred. There were multiple open containers in the back of defendant's vehicle, he admitted to having a few drinks,4 and he declined to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs). At 12:40 a.m., Nafie arrested defendant and transported him to the police station. At 2:06 a.m., defendant refused to submit to a breath test and, at 2:32 a.m., defendant was booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center (MCDC) on the charge of misdemeanor DUII, ORS 813.010.5
The same day that defendant was booked into MCDC, he was arraigned on charges of misdemeanor DUII and reckless driving, held in custody, and given a future court date of July 8, 2016. On or around that same day, the misdemeanor Deputy District Attorney (DDA) handling defendant's case informed a felony DDA within the office that defendant might have prior DUII convictions that would enhance the DUII to a felony and indicated that she would order defendant's prior convictions. See ORS 813.011 (). On June 8, defense counsel appeared at the Multnomah County Circuit Court's Criminal Procedures Court (CPC) and requested a hearing for defendant to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge. However, at that plea hearing, the state dismissed the case because it had determined that it was likely to proceed as a felony. Defendant was also released from custody.
On June 9, the felony DDA received defendant's file that included copies of defendant's certified prior DUII convictions. Approximately one month later, on July 8, the felony DDA reviewed defendant's file and confirmed that defendant's DUII should be charged as a felony. On July 19, a grand jury indicted defendant for felony DUII, ORS 813.011, and reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and the court issued a warrant for defendant's arrest.
On July 20, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) entered the warrant into various local and national law enforcement computer databases. Because defendant resided in Clark County, Washington, on July 29, MCSO sent requests to the Clark County Sheriff's Office (CCSO) and the Battle Ground Police Department asking them to "attempt to serve the *** warrant"6 at defendant's Washington address. Further, on August 15, MCSO mailed defendant a "Notice of Arrest Warrant" to that same address, notifying him that Multnomah County had issued a warrant for his arrest on felony DUII and reckless driving charges and directing him to contact the court with any inquiries. MCSO maintains records of returned mail, and there was no record that that letter had been returned.
On January 4, 2017, CCSO notified MCSO that defendant was in custody there on both local Washington charges and Multnomah County's warrant. On January 5, defendant signed a waiver of extradition, agreeing to be returned to Oregon from Washington. On March 16, defendant was transported to Multnomah County. On March 17, defendant was arraigned, released from custody, and given a court date of April 28, 2017, to return, and the same defense attorney was reappointed.7 In addition, the Oregon eCourt Case Information Network (OECI), the official Oregon Judicial Department register for the circuit courts, reflects an entry on March 21 for "Motion—Pretrial Discovery[;] Demand ," and, on April 28, "Hearing-Custody Issue."
On May 1, defense counsel learned that defendant's jail booking video from his June 3 arrest was no longer available due to the jail's policy of overwriting videos after 30 days. On July 25, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that his speedy trial rights under Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, were violated. As part of that motion, defendant argued that the state's delay in prosecuting the case, beginning from the day the misdemeanor information was filed, was unreasonable, and that he was prejudiced because the booking video was destroyed in between the dismissal of the misdemeanor information and the issuance of the felony indictment, and that the video would have aided his defense.
The state responded that defendant's Sixth Amendment claim did not begin to run until the indictment issued on July 19 and, due to the jail's 30-day policy, the video was likely overwritten before the speedy trial clock began to run. Regarding defendant's Article I, section 10, claim, the state noted that it was an open question whether the speedy trial clock began to run at the time the misdemeanor information was filed or the felony indictment issued, but it argued that defendant's motion should nonetheless be denied. The state contended that the delay was not unreasonable, and that defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced, because it would be speculative to conclude that what was contained on the video would help rather than hurt defendant's case.
The hearing occurred on August 18, 2017, and the parties relied primarily on their written legal memoranda, which included declarations, affidavits, and exhibits. The state's memoranda provided declarations from both the felony and misdemeanor DDAs and exhibits establishing the timeline of events, including the state's efforts to serve the warrant. The felony DDA did not explain why, after receiving defendant's file on June 9, she waited until July 8, nearly one month, to review it. Further, the state provided no explanation why, after defendant signed the waiver of extradition on January 5, 2017, he was not transported until March 16. Lastly, the state did not present any evidence or argument about its efforts to prosecute the case after March 17, the day defendant was arraigned on the felony indictment, and August 18, the day of the hearing.
Defendant's motion included an affidavit from Randy Rowlette, MCSO's "Systems Administration Senior." Rowlette attested that, on the day defendant was booked, MCDC's booking area had five or more cameras digitally recording inmates performing various activities in the booking process, such as removing clothing and shoes and filling out paperwork. Further, Rowlette stated that those booking videos are available for "thirty days or more" before the system automatically overwrites them, and defendant's booking video was no longer available.
Defense counsel also provided a declaration stating that Nafie's police report did not contain any descriptions of defendant exhibiting poor balance or walking, which she "frequently" sees in police reports that are describing impairment. Based on that, she believed the booking video would have been helpful to the defense at trial. She further stated that she has previously used MCDC jail booking videos in DUII trials, those booking videos demonstrate a defendant's ability or inability to walk and balance, including "standing on one foot and removing a shoe while maintaining balance." She also attested that in her experience, those booking videos, as objective evidence, are "uniquely persuasive" in DUII trials.
The trial court concluded that the overall length of time, and the 30 days it took the felony DDA to review defendant's file, was "not unusual." The trial court accepted the assertions in defense counsel's affidavit regarding what jail booking videos show "normally for people without regard to what it particularly would have shown for [defendant]." Ultimately, the trial court denied defendant's motion, concluding that defendant did not make "an adequate factual showing that the *** overwritten video would have been helpful to the [d]efense."
On August 29, defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty to Count 1, felony DUII, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss, and Count 2, reckless driving, was dismissed. Although the trial court orally imposed a $2,000 fine, the court's written judgment imposed a $2,255 "Fine-DUII."
On appeal, beginning with defendant's first assignment, defendant abandons his argument under the Sixth Amendment, and solely argues that the 14-month delay, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Paye
-
State v. Ralston
...of his booking at trial was prejudicial to him. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Ralston , 310 Or App 470, 486 P.3d 822 (2021). We allowed review and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, and we affirm in p......