“Consent” for Search Was Involuntary in Violation of the Oregon Constitution
The Oregon Court of Appeals recently reversed the conviction of defendant Jeremy Dean Watts on the grounds that Watts had not consented to the search of his residence, and even if he had, it had not been voluntary. The trial court erred by not granting Watts’ motion to suppress evidence.
The case began on a dark January night when about a dozen members of a Special Response Team (SRT) pulled up to a house occupied by Watts’ uncle. The team arrived in three armored vehicles with sirens blaring. The officers wore full body armor and were armed with semi-automatic rifles. Using loudspeakers, they ordered all occupants out of the home.
Oregon Court of Appeals Finds Trial Counsel Ineffective and Reverses Conviction and Denial of Post-Conviction Petition
The case of Cartrette v. Nooth is an example of how perseverance on the part of a criminal defendant may eventually pay off. After Joshua Ames Cartrette was charged and convicted of second-degree assault, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) in the trial court, claiming he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The trial court denied his petition and he appealed.
This time, Cartrette prevailed. The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the PCR petition and granted Cartrette relief from his conviction.
The importance Carver Law places on providing the best service to our clients requires that we stay up to date on case law and any changes that may impact our clients.
One of the areas with which we have a great deal of expertise is DUII and clients often have questions about what this law covers. Oregon law defines this charge as DUII, or “Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants.” Other states may still use the designation DUI – Driving Under the Influence, or DWI – Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Impaired.