State v. Andrews
Andrews
Citation
341 Or. App. 403
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Importance
46%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
No. 558 June 25, 2025 403 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JONATHAN CORY ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 22CR50352; A185366 Cynthia L. Easterday, Judge. On appellant’s petition for reconsideration of Appellate Commissioner’s order of dismissal filed October 22, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, for petition. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Joyce, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reconsideration allowed; order of dismissal adhered to. 404 State v. Andrews LAGESEN, C. J. This is a criminal case in which defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. When alerted to that fact by a show cause order, defendant filed an untimely motion for late appeal under ORS 138.071(5). The court, by order of the Appellate Commissioner, dismissed the appeal as untimely. Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that this appeal should proceed, notwithstanding its double untimeliness problem. The Appellate Commissioner referred the petition for reconsideration to the Motions Department for the purpose of resolving the matter by way of prec- edential opinion. We allow reconsideration for that pur- pose. On reconsideration, we conclude, as did the Appellate Commissioner, that defendant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely motion for late appeal means that this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Both ORS 19.270, made applicable to criminal pro- ceedings by ORS 138.015, and ORS 138.071 generally require, among other things, that a notice of appeal be timely filed for the Court of Appeals to have jurisdiction over an appeal. ORS 19.270 (1), (2)(b). The legislature has, however, carved out an exception to that requirement in ORS 138.071(5). That statute directs that “the Court of Appeals shall grant the defendant leave to file a notice of appeal after the time limits” set forth in those statutes provided the defendant (1) files a motion that makes the showing described in ORS 138.071(5)(a) and (2) files the motion “no later than 90 days after the party receives notice that the order or judgment has been entered.” ORS 138.071(5)(c); State v. Smith, 330 Or App 397, 399, 543 P3d 1258 (2024) (describing process for filing motion for late appeal). In this case, it is undisputed that defendant neither filed a timely notice of appeal, nor filed a timely motion for late appeal. Defendant nevertheless argues that his untimely-filed notice of appeal is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court because it was filed within the time for filing a motion for late appeal, albeit without the motion required by ORS 138.071(5). In support of that argument, he points to our deci- sion in Smith. There, we concluded that the defendant’s fail- ure to include a proposed notice of appeal, as required by ORS Cite as 341 Or App 403 (2025) 405 138.071(5)(c), with the defendant’s timely-filed motion for late appeal did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant the timely-filed motion for late appeal. Smith, 330 Or App at 399. Defendant invites us to read Smith to stand for the following: “In short, so long as the defendant files something noti- fying the court and the state of the defendant’s intent to appeal within 90-days, the failure to comply with the many requirements for notices of appeal, including the failure to file an accompanying motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal, can be cured by timelines set by the court.” We reject that invitation for two reasons. First, it is detached from the procedure set forth by the plain terms of ORS 138.071(5). Were we to adopt defen- dant’s proposed approach, we would effectively be rewriting ORS 138.071(5) to craft a process entirely different from the one enacted by the legislature. Rewriting statutes is not part of the judicial function. Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co., 373 Or 307, 326-27, 567 P3d 434 (2025). Second, defendant’s proposed approach is at odds with longstanding Oregon law treating the timelines for filing appeals as jurisdictional. In addressing whether the defect in Smith was a jurisdictional one, we looked, in part, to case law addressing what appeal-filing defects were jurisdictional and what defects were merely technical. Smith, 330 Or App at 403-04 (discussing Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., 272 Or 390, 538 P2d 70 (1975)). That case law indicated that the key jurisdictional requirements were the timely filing and service of the notice of appeal, something that, in Smith, supported
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
AI-generated comprehensive summary with legal analysis
Case Overview
Case Name: State v. Andrews
Citation: 341 Or. App. 403
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Date: June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction: SA
In the case of State v. Andrews, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed the issue of an untimely notice of appeal filed by the defendant, Jonathan Cory Andrews. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal due to jurisdictional deficiencies stemming from the failure to comply with statutory timelines.
Key Legal Issues
- Timeliness of Appeal: Did the defendant file a timely notice of appeal or a motion for late appeal?
- Jurisdictional Requirements: What are the implications of failing to meet statutory deadlines for filing appeals in criminal cases?
Court's Decision
The Court of Appeals of Oregon adhered to the prior order of dismissal, concluding that the defendant's failure to file both a timely notice of appeal and a motion for late appeal resulted in a lack of jurisdiction over the appeal.
Legal Reasoning
The court's reasoning centered on the interpretation of ORS 19.270 and ORS 138.071, which outline the requirements for filing appeals in criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that:
- The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.
- The defendant's argument that an untimely notice could confer jurisdiction was rejected, as it contradicted the statutory framework established by the legislature.
The court noted that while ORS 138.071(5) provides for a motion for late appeal, the defendant failed to meet the necessary conditions, including filing the motion within the stipulated timeframe.
Key Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed due to the defendant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely motion for late appeal.
- The court reaffirmed that statutory timelines for filing appeals are jurisdictional and cannot be extended by court order.
Precedents and Citations
- State v. Smith, 330 Or App 397 (2024) - Discussed the requirements for filing a motion for late appeal but distinguished from the current case due to the absence of a timely notice.
- Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co., 373 Or 307 (2025) - Addressed the judicial function concerning statutory interpretation.
- Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., 272 Or 390 (1975) - Provided context on jurisdictional requirements related to appeal-filing defects.
Practical Implications
This case underscores the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines in criminal appeals. Legal practitioners should note:
- The necessity of filing both a notice of appeal and any motions for late appeal within the prescribed time limits.
- The court's strict interpretation of jurisdictional requirements, which emphasizes the non-negotiable nature of statutory timelines.
- The potential consequences of failing to comply with these requirements, which can result in the dismissal of appeals and loss of rights to contest lower court decisions.
In conclusion, State v. Andrews serves as a critical reminder for defendants and their legal counsel regarding the strict adherence to procedural rules in the appellate process. Failure to comply with these rules can lead to irreversible outcomes, including the dismissal of appeals and the inability to seek further judicial review.
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 25, 2025
Jurisdiction
SA
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools