babs
Freshman
Posts: 97 
|
Post by babs on Jun 14, 2017 20:16:23 GMT -8
Hard to win a case like this against the press, just saying. Sorry for the late response. I did not intend to suggest a lawsuit, but rather buy ad space in the Oregonian to put angrybeav's linked post (on page one of this chat) in front of the readers since every time it was posted in the comments section it was unceremoniously removed. I am still willing to donate, however, being as technology challenged as I am I have no confidence in establishing an online account to accomplish such a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 15, 2017 8:21:15 GMT -8
This is not true, and Scott Barnes and Steve Clark also misspoke. Luke H is not a "felon" to my understanding. In the state of Oregon, ORS 419.400 states juvenile crimes process in juvenile court are not considered "convictions". like the article say resolution of the matter is considered adjudication. If he was processed by a juvenile court, and not tried as an adult, he is not a felon. Period. The state of Washington is very similar in this regard. Now, like you said, Luke could of potentially been tried as an adult for his offense here in Oregon. ORS 137.707 outlines it as likely. It would depend on the exact offense they brought against him, and how it correlates to Oregon's specified crimes. I believe, if I am not mistaken, these were part of the measure 11 overhauls... for better or for worse. But he was not tried in Oregon as an adult, he was processed in Washington as a juvenile. it may be pedantic, but legally he is not a felon. ORS 419.400 does not exist. 419C.400? 419C.400 states that a finding of jurisdiction does not mean that a juvenile is "convicted." That is not the same thing that you are saying. It would appear that, under ORS 137.707(1), because he was 15 at the time, Heimlich would have been prosecuted as an adult for his later offense. ORS 137.707(4)(a)(L)-(P) provides a minimum sentence of no less than 75 months. If he was convicted, when he was 16, he would still be in prison until May of next year, at the earliest. In the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon, whether he was a felon or not in Washington, he is a "convicted felon" in Oregon, as those terms are defined by the laws of the sovereign State of Oregon. If he had remained in Washington, he would have remained an "adjudicated delinquent." He is just on the wrong side of the knife's edge in Oregon. Wrong on the first part, you are right that section is only for expunged records. but 137.700 section is all the measure 11 stuff. the point that is clear is that if this OCCURED in Oregon, he is likely tried as an adult. that of course does depend on what they actually charge him with. That depends on what they have evidence to convict for, in Oregon. We cannot make 1 to 1 assumptions between what they did in Washington and what they would do in Oregon. and one has to say, if they try him as an adult, he would never plea. there is no benefit because Measure 11 was a brutally flawed law. he would fight it in a court of law and had a chance of not being charged, or convicted. A does not equal B in this situation. it is all a game of conjecture. |
|
