Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Edward N. Fadeley, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant. Frank R. Alderson, Deputy District Attorney, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Eugene C. Venn, District Attorney, and Roger N. Rook, Deputy District Attorney, Eugene.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

State of Oregon v. Brooks — Oregon Supreme Court (1958)

Citation information (from opinion): Argued September 4, 1958; Dismissed November 5, 1958. Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County, Alfred T. Goodwin, Judge. Opinion by Lusk, J., In Banc.

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter arises from an attempted appeal by the defendant (appellant) from a circuit court order that denied the defendant's "motion for an order in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis." The defendant's motion was predicated on newly discovered evidence and was filed after the statutory time for filing a motion for a new trial had expired. The circuit court denied relief on the ground that a motion for relief in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis seeking to present newly discovered evidence does not serve to extend the statutory time within which to file a motion for a new trial based on that evidence. The defendant appealed the denial to the Oregon Supreme Court. The State did not move to dismiss the appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether an appeal lies from an order denying a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis that seeks relief based on newly discovered evidence filed after the statutory period for a motion for a new trial has expired.
Whether a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis may be used for the purpose of extending the time within which to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (as framed by the circuit court's stated ground for denial).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Endsley, ___ Or ___, ___ P.2d ___ (decided the same day)	Held that an order denying relief sought by way of a motion in the nature of coram nobis is not appealable where there is no statute authorizing such an appeal.	The court treated Endsley as controlling authority; because Endsley held a similar order was not appealable, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded from the procedural posture established by the circuit court's order: the defendant sought coram nobis relief based on newly discovered evidence after the statutory period for a new-trial motion had passed, and the circuit court denied that relief on the ground that coram nobis could not be used to extend the statutory time for filing a new-trial motion.

The opinion explains that, in State v. Endsley (decided the same day), the court held that an order of the sort at issue — denying relief sought by motion in the nature of coram nobis — is not appealable because there is no statute in Oregon authorizing an appeal from such an order. Relying on that holding, the court concluded the present attempted appeal was not one the court could entertain.

The opinion also states the procedural principle that when it is apparent to the court that it lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, the court must raise the jurisdictional defect on its own motion and refrain from further proceedings. Applying that principle and the controlling holding in Endsley, the court determined it must dismiss the appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Oregon Supreme Court dismissed the attempted appeal. The dismissal was based on lack of appellate jurisdiction under the reasoning adopted in State v. Endsley, namely that there is no statutory authorization for an appeal from an order denying relief sought by a motion in the nature of coram nobis.

Implications: The direct effect is that the defendant's appeal from the circuit court's denial of the coram nobis-type motion was not reviewed and the trial-court ruling denying that motion remained in place. The opinion does not announce or establish a new rule of law in this opinion itself but follows and applies the holding in State v. Endsley, which the court identified as controlling. No broader implications beyond the immediate dismissal are discussed in this opinion.

Show full summary ...

STATE OF OREGON v. BROOKS

IN BANC

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LUSK, J.

This is an attempted appeal by the defendant from an order of the circuit court denying defendant's "motion for an order in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis." The motion was based on newly discovered evidence and was filed after the statutory time for filing a motion for a new trial had expired. The court denied the relief sought on the ground that "the motion for relief in the nature of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on the grounds of newly discovered evidence does not lie for the purpose of extending the time within which to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence."

In State v. Endsley, ___ Or ___, ___ P.2d ___, this day decided, we held that a similar order was not appealable because there is no statute in this state authorizing an appeal in cases where relief is sought by way of a motion in the nature of coram nobis. The State has not moved to dismiss this appeal. Where, however, it is apparent, as it is here, that this court is without jurisdiction of an appeal, it is the duty of the court to raise the question on its own motion and to proceed no further with the case. Our decision in the Endsley case is controlling. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

STATE v. BROOKS