Background
Andy Ross Sharp was convicted in Coos County Circuit Court of unlawful use of a vehicle under ORS 164.135. On appeal, he challenged the conviction in his sole assignment of error.
Sharp acknowledged that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, a factfinder could find that he hitched a moving trailer to a pickup truck and drove away with it. He argued, however, that this conduct did not constitute unlawful use of a vehicle because a trailer is not a “vehicle” within the meaning of ORS 164.135.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It concluded that Sharp’s statutory argument was foreclosed by the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision in State v. McCarthy, which was issued after Sharp filed his opening appellate brief.
McCarthy held, based on the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 164.135, that the legislature intended the term “vehicle” in that statute to include trailers. Because a trailer qualifies as a vehicle under the governing statute, Sharp’s conduct could support his conviction.
Key Takeaways
- A trailer is a “vehicle” for purposes of Oregon’s unlawful-use-of-a-vehicle statute, ORS 164.135.
- The Oregon Supreme Court’s intervening decision in State v. McCarthy foreclosed Sharp’s statutory-interpretation argument.
- The court affirmed Sharp’s conviction in a nonprecedential memorandum opinion that may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).
Why It Matters
The decision applies McCarthy’s interpretation of ORS 164.135 to confirm that unlawfully taking or using a trailer can support a conviction for unlawful use of a vehicle. Defendants cannot avoid the statute merely because the property involved was a trailer rather than a self-propelled vehicle.
The opinion itself is nonprecedential, but it illustrates the direct effect of the Oregon Supreme Court’s controlling interpretation on pending appeals presenting the same statutory question.