Case ID: or-app_245/html/0163-01.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

Submitted July 14,
    reversed and remanded on appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal August 17, 2011
    STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, v. YURIY PETROVICH GANNOTSKIY, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant.
    
    Multnomah County Circuit Court
    071255736; A144840
    261 P3d 95
    John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General, and Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for appellant - cross-respondent.
    Waiver of appearance for respondent - cross-appellant.
    Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge, and Rosenblum, Senior Judge.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The state seeks reversal of the trial court’s pretrial order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a blood draw administered after defendant’s arrest. In granting the motion to suppress, the trial court explicitly relied on this court’s opinion in State v. Machuca, 231 Or App 232, 218 P3d 145 (2009), rev’d, 347 Or 644, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca I). In explaining its conclusion, the trial court stated that, but for Machuca I, its ruling “would have been to the contrary[.]” After the trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, the Supreme Court decided State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644, 227 P3d 729 (2010) (Machuca II), in which it reversed our decision in Machuca I. Based on Machuca II, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded on appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal. 
      
       Defendant filed a notice of cross-appeal, but did not otherwise appear.