State v. Larrance

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: May 30, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VERN EMERSON LARRANCE, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 211017325 A147376 Jack A. Billings, Judge. Submitted on April 25, 2013. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Stephanie J. Hortsch, 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 Duncan, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment finding defendant in contempt of court. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant was found in contempt of court for having violated a restraining 3 order, and the trial court then entered a judgment stating that defendant was convicted 4 of violating the order. The court later entered an amended judgment that changed the 5 caption of the judgment to "general judgment for contempt," but the body of the 6 judgment still reflected that defendant was convicted of a crime. On appeal, defendant 7 argues that, notwithstanding the change to the caption, the judgment erroneously reflects 8 that he was convicted of a crime when, in fact, he was not. See J. L. J. v. Jung, 255 Or 9 App 507, 508, 296 P3d 1287 (2013) (reversing judgment that "erroneously states that [the 10 defendant] was 'convicted' of contempt" and remanding "for the trial court to enter a 11 judgment that instead makes clear that defendant was found in contempt of court"). We 12 agree with defendant that the judgment erroneously states that he was convicted of the 13 crime of contempt, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a judgment that 14 instead makes clear that defendant was found in contempt of court. 15 16 Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment finding defendant in contempt of court. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.