Title: Young v. Peterson

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

746 P.2d 217 (1987)
304 Or. 421
Mathew R. YOUNG, Petitioner On Review,
v.
R.S. PETERSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Correctional Institution, Respondent On Review.
No. 86-C-10444; CA A43676; SC S34494.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
On Petition for Review September 30, 1987[*].
Decided December 2, 1987.
Paul G. Crowley and Allen, Stortz, Fox & Susee, Salem, for petitioner on review.
MEMORANDUM OPINION.
An appeal from a final judgment in this postconviction case was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on March 17, 1987, for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Approximately a week later, a document entitled "Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment" was entered. A notice of appeal was filed subsequent to the "amended" judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction court.
Timely filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement for an appeal. ORS 19.033(2)(b). We previously have stated:
We see no reason why this rule should not be applied regardless of the type of case involved.
A comparison of the "amended" judgment and the original judgment in this case reveals the following differences:
1. The "amended" judgment was typed on the stationery of petitioner's attorney. The original judgment was typed on plain, line-numbered paper;
2. The word "amended" was added to the title of the writing;
3. The word "about" was removed from the phrase "about fifteen minutes" at one point in the introductory section;
4. Three typographical errors were corrected;
5. In five separate instances the numeral "7" was added to references to previous paragraphs. This addition makes the references incorrect. The references in the original judgment were correct; and
6. The two judgments bear different dates.
It is clear that the amendments had no effect whatsoever on the rights or obligations of the parties. The "amended" judgment in this case did not therefore postpone the time within which the notice of appeal was required to have been filed. There was no timely filing of a notice of appeal and the Court of Appeals therefore was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals 742 P.2d 1202, is vacated and the case is remanded for dismissal of the appeal.
[*]  On Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County, Honorable Richard D. Barber, Judge. 87 Or. App. 552, 742 P.2d 1202 (1987).