Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BILLY DALE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-07-23
Citations: 264 Or. App. 422
Docket Number: 12CR0938FE; A152538
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BILLY DALE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 264
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
Submitted June 24,
vacated and remanded July 23, 2014
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BILLY DALE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
12CR0938FE; A152538
332 P3d 348
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey Burrows, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Sarah M. Villanueva, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and De Muniz, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation. The trial court determined that defendant had violated his probation by changing his residence without permission and by associating with a known drug user. On appeal, defendant asserts that there was legally insufficient evidence of either probation violation. See State v. Perez, 122 Or App 385, 388, 857 P2d 893 (1993) (court reviews a trial court's decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion); State v. Winters, 44 Or App 9, 12, 605 P2d 293 (1980) (a trial court abuses its discretion when it revokes probation based on insufficient evidence). We reject without discussion defendant's contention regarding the change of residence. With respect to the other basis for the probation revocation, the state concedes that there was insufficient evidence that defendant had violated his probation by associating with a known drug user. Accordingly, the state asserts "this court should vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings." We agree, and accept the state's concession. See State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 710, 301 P3d 966 (2013) (reversing and remanding probation revocation judgment where one ground for revocation was incorrect and the trial court had not indicated whether it would have revoked the defendant's probation in the absence of that ground).
Vacated and remanded.