Court Opinion

ID: 9550563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:37:13.412921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:47.962536
License: Public Domain

On Respondent’s Petition eor Rehearing
Former opinion filed August 8, 1958.
*600SLOAN, J.
The state has petitioned for rehearing. We have withheld decision pending the determination of State v. Endsley, decided November 5, 1958, 214 Or 537, 331 P2d 338. The Endsley case provided this court its first opportunity to consider the appealability of an order allowing or denying a motion in the nature of coram nobis “ ‘after full presentation by adverse parties.’ ” That case decisively holds that this court has no present jurisdiction to consider such an appeal.
In the instant case neither of the parties raised the issue of the jurisdiction of this court, either upon the appeal or petition for rehearing. We now conclude that we should consider this question upon our own motion.
Our original opinion in this case recited that the instant proceeding was initiated when defendant filed a motion in the nature of coram nobis. The parties and the trial court treated the proceeding as in the nature of eoram nobis. However, for the reasons stated in our opinion we considered defendant’s motion as one to correct the record. We now mention this distinction only to eliminate any confusion that may have been created by this difference in the label applied to the motion. We hold the Endsley case is equally decisive as to the lack of the jurisdiction of this court to consider an appeal from an order allowing or denying either a motion to correct the record or in the nature of coram nobis.
We must, therefore, decline any consideration of the questions presented by the petition for rehearing.
The former opinion is withdrawn and the appeal dismissed.