Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MERLIN LAVOY LEAVITT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1996-06-26
Citations: 141 Or. App. 588
Docket Number: 94-CR1164; CA A85635
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MERLIN LAVOY LEAVITT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 141
Pages: 588–593

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted December 21, 1995,
affirmed June 26,
petition for review denied October 22,1996 (324 Or 323)
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. MERLIN LAVOY LEAVITT, Appellant.
(94-CR1164; CA A85635)
920 P2d 552
David C. Degner, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Armstrong, J., dissenting.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon. ORS 475.992; ORS 166.270. He contends that the evidence used to convict him of those charges was obtained from an illegal search. We affirm.
The issue turns on whether a police officer saw the weapon in plain view before the officer searched the car containing it. The officer testified that he had, and the trial court believed that testimony. Under our scope of review, we are bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact if there is any evidence to support them. See, e.g., State v. Sosa-Alvarez, 122 Or App 350, 353, 857 P2d 883, rev den 318 Or 98 (1993).
The arrest of defendant and the search of the car were recorded on videotape, which we have reviewed. Although our review of the videotape might lead us to a different conclusion, the trial court viewed the videotape and found the officer's oral testimony credible. Consequently, there is evidence to support the trial court's findings and we are bound by them.
Affirmed.