Court Opinion

ID: 9844545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:04:31.25681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:37.177003
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur with the majority decision; however, I may differ on the scope of our review.
The majority opinion states the scope of our review is to determine whether there is evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings. TMs is an appeal from a mandamus proceeding in the circMt court directed at a ruling of the district court. Ordinarily, in such a situation I am of the opinion that the scope of *362review of the circuit court and the appellate court is to decide whether there was any evidence before the district court to support the district court’s ruling. In State ex rel Ware v. Hieber, 267 Or 124 at 127, 515 P2d 721 (1973), we so held:
“Based upon the nature of mandamus and the relation of mandamus to appeal, we conclude that our function is to decide whether there was any evidence to substantiate the circuit court’s ruling. * * m «
That was an original mandamus proceeding in this court in which we were petitioned to mandamus the circuit court.
In the present case, however, this is not the issue because an inadequate opportunity was offered the petitioner to present his evidence of indigency. Normally, this would result in the court remanding the case to the district court to make further inquiry and make a ruling; however, I agree with the majority that a remand would be a useless act in this case.
It is not necessary to address ourselves to the question of what is an adequate inquiry. Section 136, ch 836, Oregon Laws 1973, is applicable to future cases before the district court and provides how and in what form the accused shall present the evidence of his indigency.
O’Connell, C. J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.