Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

322 Or. App. 727

State v. Wang

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 16, 2022

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Oregon · decided 2022-11-16

Reversed and remanded · Decided 2022-11-16

                                 727

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
      Submitted October 6, reversed and remanded November 16, 2022


                   STATE OF OREGON,
                    Plaintiff-Respondent,
                              v.
                      XILONG WANG,
               aka Xen Liu, aka Xilong Wong,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Washington County Circuit Court
                   21CR06562; A175786


   Ricardo J. Menchaca, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
   ORTEGA, P. J.
   Reversed and remanded.
728                                           State v. Wang

        ORTEGA, P. J.
          Defendant was convicted of aggravated identity
theft following a jury trial. On appeal, defendant raises one
assignment of error, arguing that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during
a warrantless search of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court
found the search to have been justified under the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement, as set forth in
State v. Brown, 
301 Or 268
, 
721 P2d 1357
 (1986). However,
the Supreme Court has since overruled Brown and eliminated the per se exigent circumstances justifying searches
under the automobile exception. State v. McCarthy, 
369 Or 129
, 
501 P3d 478
 (2021).
        The state concedes that the trial court’s decision
was based on a legal standard that no longer exists and
agrees with defendant that the judgment should be reversed
and remanded for further proceedings, consistent with
McCarthy. We agree with and accept the state’s concession.
        Reversed and remanded.

/322/orapp/727 · .json · Public domain