State v. Mott

In deciding whether to grant a post-opinion motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals should weigh a number of factors including whether the motion is unopposed, whether the dismissal would allow a party to avoid legal consequences, and if there are compelling practical consequences the appealing party wishes to avoid. State v. Lasheski, 312 Or App 714, 721-22 P3d 1118 (2021).

Defendant appealed after the lower court denied his post-opinion motion to dismiss his appeal for his criminal conviction. Defendant assigned error to the lower court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. Defendant argued that the Court of Appeals did not have discretion to deny the motion to dismiss because it was unopposed and because a defendant in a noncapital case has the right to waive their right to appeal. In response, State argued that the Court of Appeals does have discretion to deny a motion to dismiss. In deciding whether to grant a post-opinion motion to dismiss, the court should weigh a number of factors including whether the motion is unopposed, whether the dismissal would allow a party to avoid legal consequences, and if there are any compelling practical consequences the appealing party wishes to avoid. State v. Lasheski, 312 Or App 714, 721-22 P3d 1118 (2021). The Court found that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss because the motion was unopposed, dismissal would save time and resources for all parties and the legal system, and dismissal would not interfere with the administration of justice. Reversed and dismissed.