Case ID: or-app_210/html/0364-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted May 4,
    
    affirmed December 27, 2006,
    petition for review denied March 27, 2007 (342 Or 523)
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN ROBERT WILLIS, Appellant.
    
    98CR0977; A121244
    150 P3d 49
    Rankin Johnson IV, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, and Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Legal Services Division, Office of Public Defense Services.
    Christina M. Hutchins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
    Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Linder, Judge, and Rasmussen, Judge pro tempore.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks review of the revocation of his probation imposed as a result of convictions for burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, and assault in the fourth degree, ORS 163.160. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s admission of hearsay evidence at his probation revocation hearing, arguing, in part, that such admission violated his right to confrontation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant asserts that he preserved this argument as required by ORAP 5.45 by including it in a motion in limine that he submitted to the trial court. However, because defendant did not pursue an objection or seek a ruling on due process grounds at any point during the revocation hearing, that issue is not preserved for purposes of appeal. State v. Turley, 202 Or App 40, 47-48, 120 P3d 1229 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 157 (2006).

A discussion of the alternative grounds for reversal raised by defendant would not benefit the public, bench, or bar.

Affirmed.