Court Opinion

ID: 9560214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:45:25.685616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:25.893163
License: Public Domain

NEWMAN, J.,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I dissent from the portion of the majority’s opinion that holds that defendant was properly convicted in each case, not of a misdemeanor, but of felony driving while revoked under former ORS 487.560(6). That statute provides that driving while revoked is a Class C felony, if the “revocation was the result of a finding that the person is an habitual traffic offender under ORS 484.727.” It does not refer to former ORS 484.730 (repealed in 1983), which is the statute under which *8the court found in 1982 that defendant was an habitual traffic offender. The legislature may have inadvertently omitted reference to former ORS 484.730 when it amended former ORS 487.560 in 1983, but we cannot “insert what has been omitted.” ORS 174.010. The result of ignoring the language of the statute is that defendant’s convictions are changed from misdemeanors to felonies. The convictions for driving while revoked should not have been enhanced from misdemeanors to Class C felonies.
I concur with the remainder of the majority’s opinion.