Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CODY RAY SARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2007-11-07
Citations: 216 Or. App. 177
Docket Number: CF050400; A131905
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CODY RAY SARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 216
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs October 5,
reversed November 7, 2007
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CODY RAY SARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
CF050400; A131905
171 P3d 397
Ingrid Swenson, Executive Director, Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and David O. Ferry, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong and Rosenblum, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his convictions for first-degree failure to appear, ORS 162.205, and second-degree failure to appear, ORS 162.195. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence did not establish that he had been "released from custody" as that term is used in ORS 162.205(l)(a) and ORS 162.195(l)(a). The state concedes that, under our reasoning in State v. Ford, 207 Or App 407, 142 P3d 107 (2006), its evidence did not establish that defendant had been "released from custody." The state therefore concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. We find the state's concession to be well founded, and accept it.
Reversed.