State v. Perju

Full title: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pavel Ion PERJU…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Jan 4, 2018

408 P.3d 275 (Or. Ct. App. 2018)

408 P.3d 275

Opinion

A165257

01-04-2018

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Pavel Ion PERJU, Defendant-Appellant.

Michael E. Rose filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Michael E. Rose filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jamie K. Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

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

PER CURIAMThe trial court convicted defendant of the traffic violation of operating a motor vehicle while using a mobile communication device. Former ORS 811.507 (2015), amended by Or. Laws 2017, ch. 629, § 1. On appeal, defendant argues that, because there was no evidence that he was using his cell phone for a communicative purpose while driving, the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The state concedes that there was insufficient evidence that defendant "used" his cell phone under former ORS 811.507, as we construed that statute in State v. Rabanales-Ramos , 273 Or.App. 228, 359 P.3d 250 (2015). We agree with the state's concession, accept it, and reverse the trial court's judgment.

Reversed.