Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES V. LOCKARD, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1994-01-05
Citations: 125 Or. App. 680
Docket Number: 15-85-08944 B; CA A78781
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES V. LOCKARD, Appellant.
Judges: Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 125
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 3, 1993,
affirmed January 5,
petition for review denied April 5, 1994 (318 Or 583)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JAMES V. LOCKARD, Appellant.
(15-85-08944 B; CA A78781)
866 P2d 520
George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Ann F. Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of contempt for failure to comply with the terms of a judgment modifying a dissolution judgment. We affirm.
Defendant and his ex-wife orally stipulated to a modification of their dissolution judgment. Defendant refused to sign a written agreement. On November 13,1990, the trial court memorialized the oral agreement in a written order. Defendant appealed the judgment entered on that order, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment and that the judgment violated his constitutional rights. We affirmed the judgment, and the Supreme Court denied review. Lockard and Lockard, 110 Or App 371, 821 P2d 1134 (1991), rev den 313 Or 210 (1992).
Several months after the Supreme Court denied review, the complaint in this case was filed, charging defendant with several violations of the November 13,1990, order. Defendant did not dispute the charges, and the trial court found him in criminal contempt.
Defendant contends that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the November 13, 1990, order, that the judgment entered based on that order is invalid and that he therefore cannot be punished for violating it. Defendant raised and lost that argument in Lockard and Lockard, supra. We will not revisit it. State v. Pratt, 316 Or 561, 569, 853 P2d 827 (1993).
We have considered and reject without discussion defendant's remaining assignments of error.
Affirmed.
The new contempt statutes enacted by the legislature in 1991 are not applicable here. Or Laws 1991, ch 724, § 32.