Brown v. Zenon

6 Citing cases

  1. Pinnell v. Belleque

    638 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Or. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Finding 150-page briefing limit for post-conviction death penalty proceedings in state court reasonable and generous

    Resp't Reply at 34. The State relies on Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or.App. 291, 891 P.2d 666 (1995), a post-Palmer case, to support its argument. In Brown, the petitioner alleged in his post-conviction petition that the prosecutor intentionally delayed filing charges against him until after his 18th birthday to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction.

  2. State v. Goin

    334 Or. App. 497 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    After holding a hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction because defendant was returned to MacLaren on his original charges, and he was not in "protective custody" on the new charges at that time. See Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or.App. 291, 295, 891 P.2d 666 (1995) ("[jurisdiction attaches when a child is taken into protective custody. ORS 419B.157; ORS 419C.094. If a child is not taken into protective custody, jurisdiction attaches when other steps are taken to initiate judicial proceedings.").

  3. State v. L. P. L. O. (In re L. P. L. O.)

    280 Or. App. 292 (Or. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that juvenile court's jurisdiction did not terminate when juvenile turned 18 based on long-standing Oregon law

    That above-quoted text has remained unchanged since 1959, when former ORS 419.476 (1991) was first enacted. Or Laws 1959, ch 432, § 2 ("The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in any case involving a person who is under 18 years of age and * * *."). Under former ORS 419.476(1) (1991), and the identical text in ORS 419C.005(1), we have long held in delinquency cases that the youth's age for the purpose of the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction is measured at the point that judicial proceedings are initiated.See, e.g., Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or App 291, 295, 891 P2d 666 (1995) (recognizing that "jurisdiction attaches when a child is taken into protective custody. ORS 419B.157; ORS 419C.094. If a child is not taken into protective custody, jurisdiction attaches when other steps are taken to initiate judicial proceedings."); Delaney v. State of Oregon, 58 Or App 442, 445, 648 P2d 1302 (1982) (recognizing, under former ORS 419.476 (1991), that "jurisdiction of the juvenile court does not depend on the defendant's age at the time the criminal act was committed, but his age at the time judicial proceedings were initiated"); see alsoState v. Godines, 236 Or App 404, 414, 236 P3d 824, rev den, 340 Or 480 (2010) (applying Delaney to ORS 419C.005(1)).

  4. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. J. D

    164 P.3d 1182 (Or. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    We conclude that the state is required to establish that one of the predicate circumstances of ORS 419B.150 has been met; truancy alone is insufficient. See Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or App 291, 295, 899 P2d 666 (1995) ("Protective custody is authorized by * * * ORS 419B.150 only in certain circumstances." (Emphasis added.)).

  5. State v. Penny-Rafael

    75 P.3d 908 (Or. Ct. App. 2003)

    PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or. App. 291, 891 P.2d 666 (1995); State v. Porter, 29 Or. App. 67, 562 P.2d 566, rev den (1977).

  6. State v. Hardges

    980 P.2d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    See Harris, 157 Or App at 124 (reversal required if ORICO conviction is based on less than two predicate adult offenses). There is no indication in the record that defendant was taken into custody on the unadjudicated juvenile offenses, or that juvenile court jurisdiction otherwise attached on them before defendant turned 18. See Brown v. Zenon, 133 Or. App. 291, 294-95, 891 P.2d 666 (1995). Third, defendant contends that the demurrer should have been granted, for reasons explained in the briefing in a separate appeal involving a different party, State v. Lyons, CA A89277. Defendant, however, does not explain how any of those contentions asserted in the other case pertain to his indictment, and we are unable to discern the relationship between them.