State v. Dent

The framework required for issuing a warrant upon an affidavit is “(1) whether there is reason to believe that the facts are true, and (2) whether the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit, if true, are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.” State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999). Charges are cross-related if they “arise out of the same act or transaction.” State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647, 669 (2018). “[T]wo charges arise out of the same act or transaction if they are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.” Id.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for mail theft and aggravated identity theft. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s: (1) denial of her motion to suppress evidence; and (2) finding that counts 1-9 constituted separate criminal episodes.

Regarding the motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the affidavit submitted before the magistrate did not contain enough information to allow a reasonable magistrate to determine probable cause for a warrant to search her home. In response, the State argued that the affidavit contained "a welath of information" in addition to the requesting officer’s training and experience, rendering it sufficient. The framework required for issuing a warrant upon an affidavit is “(1) whether there is reason to believe that the facts are true, and (2) whether the facts and circumstances disclosed by the affidavit, if true, are sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the search requested.” State v. Goodman, 328 Or 318 (1999). The Court agreed with the State and concluded the magistrate had sufficient evidence to ascertain probable cause to issue a valid warrant.

Next, Defendant argued that Counts 1 to 9 were erroneously constituted as separate criminal episodes. The State argued that ORS 137.717 required separate charges for the purpose of sentencing repeat offenders. Charges are cross-related if they “arise out of the same act or transaction.” State v. Dulfu, 363 Or 647, 669 (2018). “[T]wo charges arise out of the same act or transaction if they are so closely linked in time, place and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without relating details of the other charge.” Id. Finding Defendant's conduct to be similar to the Defendant's conduct in State v. Nesbit, the Court found that each taking of mail stood alone and were properly considered as separate episodes. State v. Nesbit, 274 Or App 694, 696 (2015). Affirmed.