Full text
State v. Ortega
No. 222 March 18, 2026 899
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JOSE JUAN GUADELUPE ARZOLA ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 24CR38616, 24CR42678; A185573 (Control), A185574
Timothy R. Park, Judge pro tempore. Submitted February 5, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Joshua B. Crowther, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed.
900 State v. Ortega
PER CURIAM Defendant appeals judgments of conviction for resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, and third-degree theft, ORS 164.043, arguing that the trial court plainly erred in impos- ing two conditions of probation. Defendant first contends that the condition requiring him to obey state law when it conflicts with federal law violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. That argument is foreclosed by our decision in State v. McClintock-Perez, 346 Or App 34, 36, ___ P3d ___ (2025) (rejecting plain error challenge to same condition). Defendant next challenges the general probation condition requiring probationers con- victed of “a sex crime defined in ORS 163A.005 or harass- ment under ORS 166.065(4)(a)(A)” to complete sex offender treatment if recommended by the probation officer. Any such error, however, would be harmless as to defendant, who was not convicted of those crimes. Affirmed.