State v. Cross

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Mueller

    332 Or. App. 84 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    ORS 137.751 governs whether an offender who completes such programs is eligible for early release as a result of program completion. State v. Cross, 264 Or.App. 205, 206 n 1, 331 P.3d 1073, rev den, 356 Or. 400 (2014).

  2. State v. Goodenough

    264 Or. App. 211 (Or. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    We agree that the trial court applied the wrong legal test to determine defendant's eligibility for AIPs. However, defendant not only failed to preserve that issue for appeal, but she also affirmatively invited any error. Accordingly, we affirm. The trial court's decision is consistent with the statutory framework as it existed for offenses committed prior to January 1, 2009. Prior to that date, ORS 137.750(1) (1997), amended by Or. Laws 2008, ch. 35, § 2 (Spec Sess), governed the determination of whether a defendant was eligible for AIPs. As we observed in State v. Cross, 264 Or.App. 205, 207, 331 P.3d 1073 (2014), that statute “ required a trial court to order a defendant's eligibility for, among other things, AIPs, unless the trial court found ‘substantial and compelling reasons' to deny eligibility.” (Emphases in original.)

  3. State v. Haines

    283 Or. App. 444 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that the defendant did not understand the benefits of having counsel at sentencing following a bench trial when his previous experience with an attorney was at sentencing following a plea deal with the state

    "State v. Cross, 264 Or.App. 205, 206 n. 1, 331 P.3d 1073, rev. den., 356 Or. 400, 339 P.3d 440 (2014).The court sided with the prosecutor, stating:

  4. State v. Cross

    339 P.3d 440 (Or. 2014)

    2014-10-23State v. Robert Steven Cross264 Or.App. 205, 331 P.3d 1073 DENIED.