From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bateman

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 14, 1988
94 Or. App. 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)

Opinion

C85-08-33209; C85-10-34220; CA A44854 (Control); A44855 (Cases Consolidated)

Argued and submitted December 24, 1987

Appeals dismissed as moot December 14, 1988

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Dorothy M. Baker, Judge.

Diane L. Alessi, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

Brenda J. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Arthur B. LaFrance, Maureen Barstow, Jonathan Logan and Michael Miluicci, Portland, filed a brief amicus curiae for American Civil Liberties Union.

Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Van Hoomissen, Judge pro tempore.

Joseph, C.J., vice Young, J., deceased.


PER CURIAM

Appeals dismissed as moot.


Defendant appeals a condition of probation requiring him to post certain signs on the door to his home and the sides of any motor vehicle that he operates. The court imposed the condition after defendant pled no contest to two charges of sexual misconduct in the first degree. ORS 163.425. Because the court revoked defendant's probation after he filed these appeals, we dismiss them as moot.

Appeals dismissed as moot.


Summaries of

State v. Bateman

Oregon Court of Appeals
Dec 14, 1988
94 Or. App. 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
Case details for

State v. Bateman

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICHARD J. BATEMAN, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 14, 1988

Citations

94 Or. App. 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)
765 P.2d 249

Citing Cases

State v. Bateman

He appealed from the "Judgment and Probation Order," asserting that those conditions of probation violate…

State v. Lindquist

We agree with the state and therefore do not address defendant's arguments. See State v. Bateman, 94 …