State v. Jones
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: April 3, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RYAN TODD JONES, Defendant-Appellant. Clackamas County Circuit Court CR1002067 A148499 Ronald D. Thom, Judge. Submitted on February 22, 2013. Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Ingrid MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Tiffany Keast, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Egan, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded with instructions to merge defendant's convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle and unauthorized use of a vehicle into a single conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of 3 methamphetamine, possession of a burglary tool or theft device, unauthorized use of a 4 vehicle, and possession of a stolen vehicle. He raises two assignments of error. We 5 reject defendant's second assignment of error without discussion and write to address his 6 first assignment, in which he contends that the trial court committed plain error in failing 7 to merge the guilty verdict for possession of a stolen vehicle with the guilty verdict for 8 unauthorized use of a vehicle. See State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 256 P3d 166 (2011) 9 (guilty verdict for possession of a stolen vehicle merges with guilty verdict for 10 unauthorized use of a vehicle); see also ORAP 5.45; Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 11 312 Or 376, 382, 823 P2d 956 (1991) (court has discretion to review unpreserved error of 12 law apparent on the face of the record). The state acknowledges our holding in Noe but 13 contends that Noe was wrongly decided. We adhere to our holding in Noe that all of the 14 elements of possession of a stolen vehicle are subsumed into the elements of 15 unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in a case such as this one, and, for the reasons stated 16 in State v. Camacho-Alvarez, 225 Or App 215, 216, 200 P3d 613 (2009), we conclude 17 that it is appropriate to exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case. 18 Reversed and remanded with instructions to merge defendant's convictions 19 for possession of a stolen vehicle and unauthorized use of a vehicle into a single 20 conviction for unauthorized use of a vehicle and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 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.
