Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCI LORENE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2010-02-03
Citations: 233 Or. App. 506
Docket Number: 064367; A138369
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCI LORENE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 233
Pages: 506–507

Head Matter:
Submitted August 27, 2009,
affirmed February 3,
petition for review denied May 13, 2010 (348 Or 291)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARCI LORENE DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Lincoln County Circuit Court
064367; A138369
225 P3d 150
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Meredith Allen, Senior Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Erika L. Hadlock, Acting Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Riggs, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, ORS 475.886; possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894; theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055; and theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045.
On appeal, defendant argues that the state was required to prove that defendant had a culpable mental state with respect to the pertinent elements of the theft charges. More specifically, defendant argues that the state was required to prove that defendant actually knew the value of the stolen merchandise was at least the requisite amount required by the statutes: $200 for theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055(l)(a), and $50 for theft in the second degree, ORS 164.045(l)(b).
The state responds that we explicitly rejected defendant's interpretation of the theft statutes in State v. Jones, 223 Or App 611, 196 P3d 97 (2008), rev den, 345 Or 618 (2009). The state is correct, and we therefore affirm.
Affirmed.