Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY ERWIN VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2014-09-04
Citations: 265 Or. App. 336
Docket Number: 12C41376; A152891
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY ERWIN VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 265
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Submitted July 29,
affirmed September 4,
petition for review denied November 6, 2014 (356 Or 510)
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GARY ERWIN VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.
Marion County Circuit Court
12C41376; A152891
335 P3d 1278
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Jeff J. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Tookey, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, and operating a motor vehicle without driving privileges, ORS 807.010. On appeal, he assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant argues that, in order to obtain a conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer under ORS 811.540, the state was required to prove that he drove evasively and, here, there was no evidence that he did so.
Defendant's assignment of error is resolved by our recent decision in State v. George, 263 Or App 642, 330 P3d 1239 (2014). In that case, we considered the question defendant raises here — whether ORS 811.540 requires evidence of evasive driving — and answered that question in the negative. In particular, we concluded that ORS 811.540 "does not require evidence of evasive driving" and, instead, "[t]he offense is complete when, given a signal to stop, an individual knowingly continues and avoids compliance with a pursuing officer." George, 263 Or App at 645-46. In light of George, we reject defendant's contention in this case that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.
Affirmed.