Case ID: or-app_27/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SCHWAB, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued November 22,
    affirmed December 20,1976,
    reconsideration denied January 26,
    petition for review denied March 15, 1977
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM RALPH BURRIS, Appellant.
    
    (No. C-75-10-3536, CA 6082)
    557 P2d 701
    
      Richard S. Mannis, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    
      Catherine Allan, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Richardson, Judges.
    SCHWAB, C. J.
   SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a stolen motor vehicle. ORS 481.990(5).

The state urges that we dismiss defendant’s appeal for failure to comply with this court’s Rules of Procedure. Defendant’s brief fails to comply with the following rules:

Rule 6.15, which requires a list of authorities referred to in the brief;

Rule 6.17, which requires that the statement of facts contain references to where in the record such facts appear;

Rule 6.18, which requires that each assignment of error set out verbatim the pertinent portions of the record;

Rule 6.22, which requires that reference be made to pages and volumes of the transcript whenever particular evidence is discussed;

Rule 6.24, which requires that a relevant abstract of the trial court’s record be set out in the brief; and

Rule 6.55, which requires that in a criminal case, the indictment be set forth verbatim.

Because of these numerous violations of the Rules of Procedure, this court has no obligation to consider defendant’s appeal. Introduction, Rules of Procedure, Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon (1974); see State v. Lamphere, 233 Or 330, 378 P2d 706 (1963). Nevertheless, we have considered defendant’s contentions and find no error. Although we have done so in this instance, it should not be assumed that we will do so in like situations in the future.

Affirmed.