Background
Arturo Macias Cordova, Jr., appealed from a judgment of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. The memorandum opinion does not describe the underlying charges, facts, or specific ruling challenged on appeal.
Cordova’s appeal presented an argument similar to a request recently addressed in State v. Pittman: that the Court of Appeals should overrule State v. Davis. The case was submitted without oral argument to a two-judge department authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b).
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a per curiam decision. It relied on State v. Pittman, which had rejected a similar request to overrule State v. Davis.
The court provided no additional substantive analysis. The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Cordova’s judgment.
- The court relied on State v. Pittman’s refusal to overrule State v. Davis.
- The memorandum opinion is nonprecedential and subject to ORAP 10.30’s citation restrictions.
Why It Matters
The decision reflects the Court of Appeals’ continued adherence to State v. Davis following its treatment of the same issue in State v. Pittman. Litigants raising comparable arguments should account for Pittman’s rejection of the request to overturn Davis.
Because the opinion is nonprecedential and supplies no independent reasoning, its broader utility is limited, and attorneys should observe ORAP 10.30 before citing it.