J.L.J. v. Jung

Full title: J.L.J., Petitioner, v. Justin Michael JUNG, Respondent. State of Oregon…

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Date published: Feb 27, 2013

255 Or. App. 507 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)

296 P.3d 1287

Opinion

C104622RO; A147683.

2013-02-27

J.L.J., Petitioner, v. Justin Michael JUNG, Respondent. State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Justin Michael Jung, Defendant–Appellant.

Washington County Circuit Court, Donald R. Letourneau, Judge. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jonah Morningstar, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Attorney–in–Charge, Criminal Appeals, filed the brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Washington County Circuit Court, Donald R. Letourneau, Judge.
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Jonah Morningstar, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Attorney–in–Charge, Criminal Appeals, filed the brief for respondent.
Before SCHUMAN, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Judge, and DUNCAN, Judge.

Defendant was found in contempt of court for having violated a restraining order, and the trial court then entered a judgment stating that defendant was “convicted” of violating the order. On appeal, defendant argues that the judgment erroneously reflects that he was “convicted” of an offense when, in fact, he was not. State v. Caldwell, 247 Or.App. 372, 375 n. 1, 270 P.3d 341 (2011) (“A conviction for contempt is not a proper disposition. See State v. Campbell, 246 Or.App. 683, 267 P.3d 205 (2011) (accepting state's concession that contempt is not a crime and that the court erred in entering a conviction for contempt); State v. Reynolds, 239 Or.App. 313, 243 P.3d 496 (2010) (accepting state's concession that trial court erred in imposing a judgment of conviction and sentence after finding the defendant in contempt).”). We agree with defendant that the judgment erroneously states that he was “convicted” of contempt, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment that instead makes clear that defendant was found in contempt of court.

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment finding defendant in contempt of court and imposing punitive damages.