State v. Stull

674                    May 22, 2024                No. 337

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                   BARRY JOE STULL,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Multnomah County Circuit Court
                   19CR21313; A178951

  Andrew M. Lavin, Judge.
  Submitted April 29, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Kirsten M. Naito, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán,
Judge.
  MOONEY, J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)          675

        MOONEY, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation. He assigns error to the trial court’s finding that he
violated probation by possessing a weapon, arguing that
the state produced insufficient evidence of the charged violation because the “softball sized rock” that he possessed
did not qualify as a “weapon.” But it is well-established
that common objects may be considered dangerous weapons
depending on how they are used, including the pavement, a
hardwood floor, a can opener, and any “small, hard object.”
Sutherland v. Fhuere, 

, ___ P3d ___
(2024) (asphalt pavement); State v. Glazier, 

, 

 (2012), rev den, 

 (2013) (hardwood floor); State v. Gale, 

, 

(1978) (can opener); State v. Allen, 

,

 (1991) (“small, hard object”). The evidence supports a determination that defendant possessed and threw
softball sized rocks at passing vehicles. We affirm.
        Affirmed.