No. 631 November 29, 2023 347
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANASTASIO SOLIS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
20CR63043; A178061
Christopher R. Brauer, Judge.
Submitted August 21, 2023.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and James Brewer, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Erica L. Herb, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Hellman, Judge,
and Armstrong, Senior Judge.
HELLMAN, J.
Affirmed.
348 State v. Solis
HELLMAN, J.
Defendant appeals his judgment of conviction for
interference with making a report, ORS 165.572. In his
sole assignment of error, defendant contends that there was
insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Because defendant’s assignment of error is neither preserved nor plain
error, we affirm.
Defendant was charged with interference with making a report based on allegations that, during an argument
and physical altercation with his wife, defendant pinned
her down and attempted to take her cell phone from her as
she called 9-1-1. On appeal, defendant presents us with a
fully developed statutory interpretation argument as to why
ORS 165.572 requires a defendant to interfere with the telephone itself, and, why defendant’s conduct here was insufficient to establish criminal liability under that interpretation of the statute. Defendant did not make that argument
below. Instead, at the close of the state’s case, defendant
made a general motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing
only that the state “failed to show … beyond a reasonable
doubt that any interference with making a report occurred.”
Defendant’s general motion for judgment of acquittal did not
specify any theory as to why the state’s evidence was insufficient. Therefore, it did not preserve the argument that he
raises on appeal. See State v. Schodrow,
(2003) (so concluding).
In addition, because resolving the insufficiency
question would require us to address competing inferences
in the record, defendant’s argument does not meet the standard for plain error review. See State v. Vanornum,
(2013) (requiring “an error of law,
obvious and not reasonably in dispute, and apparent on the
record without requiring the court to choose among competing inferences” to qualify as plain error (emphasis added)).
Affirmed.
