State v. J. S. B.

302                  February 26, 2025                  No. 171

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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

      In the Matter of J. S. B., aka J. S. B. B., J., Jr.,
                          a Youth.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                       Respondent,
                             v.
                          J. S. B.,
                    aka J. S. B. B., J.,
                        Appellant.
              Douglas County Circuit Court
                  16JU09821; A182136

   Kathleen E. Johnson, Judge.
   Submitted January 28, 2025.
  Shannon Storey, Chief Defender, Juvenile Appellate
Section, and Joshua Crowther, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
    Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General,
filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                           303

           PER CURIAM
         Youth, who came into the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in 2017 at age 12, for acts constituting attempted
first-degree sodomy if committed by an adult, was placed
in the custody of the Oregon Youth Authority for a period
of 10 years. Youth is now age 18 and appeals from an order
requiring him to register as a sex offender under ORS
163A.025. Youth contends that the juvenile court plainly
erred in rejecting his request for relief from the sex offender
reporting requirement in determining that youth had not
established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is
rehabilitated, as required by ORS 163A.030(1).1 Youth’s specific argument on appeal is that the court plainly erred in
relying on youth’s housing situation as a basis for denying
his request for relief.
        Under ORS 163A.030(7)(b), a person seeking relief
from the reporting requirement is required to show
   “by clear and convincing evidence that the person is rehabilitated and does not pose a threat to the safety of the public. If the court finds that the person has not met the burden of proof, the court shall enter an order requiring the
   person to report as a sex offender under ORS 163A.025.”
         In determining that youth had not met his burden
of proof, the court noted the evidence that youth had been
living with his grandmother for several months, as well as
his improved behavior during that time, but explained:
   “After such a long period of difficulty abiding by rules and
   history of engaging in inappropriate behaviors, [the court
   does] not believe that [it] can view his rather short period
   of improved behavior as clear and convincing evidence that
   he has now been fully rehabilitated. [The court] believe[s]
   that more time in the community behaving appropriately
   is needed … to constitute clear and convincing evidence.”
         After considering the juvenile court’s order, it is
clear that, contrary to youth’s contention, the court did not
rely on youth’s housing situation as a basis for rejecting his
motion. Rather, the court based its determination on the

    1
       Youth also contends that he preserved this contention. We conclude, however, that he did not.
304                                          State v. J. S. B.

conclusion that, based on youth’s conduct, there was insufficient proof that youth had been rehabilitated. We therefore
reject youth’s contention that relying on youth’s housing situation as a basis for denying the request for relief from the
sex offender reporting requirements was plain error.
         We note further that, under our standard of review,
in assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in support
of the trial court’s findings, we “view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the juvenile court’s determinations.”
State v. A. L. M., 

, 

, rev den,

 (2020). We have reviewed the record and conclude that, under our standard of review, the evidence was
sufficient for the trial court to have made the determination
that it did.
        Affirmed.