Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT HUDSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-04-24
Citations: 106 Or. App. 768
Docket Number: DA 412678-9001; CA A64154
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT HUDSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 106
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 7, 1990,
affirmed April 24, 1991
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. ROBERT HUDSON, Appellant.
(DA 412678-9001; CA A64154)
808 P2d 1023
Deni Starr, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Janet Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appears to be appealing from a conviction for unauthorized departure, ORS 162.175, on the ground either that the statute is vague or that the state's evidence was insufficient. The brief fails to set out the motion made below, including the grounds for that motion, fails to set out the pertinent portions of the record, fails to make proper references to the audiotape and fails to identify the applicable standard of review, all in violation of the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure. As a result, there is no cognizable assignment of error.
Affirmed.