Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. JACK E. JOHNS, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1995-04-26
Citations: 134 Or. App. 202
Docket Number: 93-06-164 CR; CA A83771
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. JACK E. JOHNS, Respondent.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 134
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 10,
affirmed April 26, 1995
STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. JACK E. JOHNS, Respondent.
(93-06-164 CR; CA A83771)
894 P2d 1218
Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Mike Kilpatrick argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Kilpatricks.
Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, the state contends that "[t]he trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss [an] amended information." We affirm.
On January 13, 1993, defendant received citations for illegal possession of a game mammal, illegal taking of a game mammal without a valid tag, ORS 498.002, and loaning an elk tag to another, ORS 497.400. Later, after numerous proceedings in justice court, the district attorney elected to charge those offenses as misdemeanors and filed an information in circuit court. However, because the information did not allege that defendant had a culpable mental state, it in fact charged defendant with violations. ORS 496.992(2). Defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds.
On January 24, 1994, the state moved to file an amended information, which alleged that defendant had a culpable mental state. The trial court did not explicitly rule on that motion, and on January 25,1994, it granted defendant's motion to dismiss the original information.
The state does not assign error to the dismissal of the first information or to the trial court's disposition of the state's motion to file an amended information. Instead, it assigns error to the dismissal of an amended information that was never filed and on which the trial court never made a ruling. Thus, the state asks for review of an order that was never entered.
Affirmed.