Oregon Court Of Appeals: Oregon State V. Oatney A181144 Argued

• The Oregon Court of Appeals is handling a criminal appeal titled State of Oregon v. Billy Lee Oatney Jr., identified by case number A181144.
• This appellate case originated from Washington County Circuit Court case 18CR70058, presided over by then-Judge Beth L. Roberts.
• The appeal was argued and formally submitted to the court on December 5, 2025, with Richard L. Wolf presenting arguments.
• The document detailing these procedural facts is dated September 16, 2026, serving as a formal record of the case's status.

The formal document outlining these procedural details is dated September 16, 2026, serving as a snapshot of the case's status at that particular point in time.

A specific criminal appeal, identified as Oregon State v. Oatney A181144, has been formally documented within the Oregon judicial system. This case involves the State of Oregon as the Plaintiff-Respondent and Billy Lee Oatney Jr. as the Defendant-Appellant. The appellate proceedings stem from an initial judgment rendered in the Washington County Circuit Court, which carried the case number 18CR70058. The original trial-level proceedings were presided over by then-Judge Beth L. Roberts.

The matter was subsequently advanced to the Oregon Court of Appeals for review. Records indicate that the arguments for this appeal were presented and the case was formally submitted on December 5, 2025. Richard L. Wolf is noted as the counsel who argued the cause on behalf of one of the parties. The formal document outlining these procedural details is dated September 16, 2026, serving as a snapshot of the case's status at that particular point in time.

The progression of a case from a circuit court to the Oregon Court of Appeals, as seen in State of Oregon v. Billy Lee Oatney Jr., represents a standard pathway for challenging lower court decisions. The distinct case numbers, 18CR70058 for the Washington County Circuit Court and A181144 for the appellate level, are crucial identifiers that track the case through different judicial tiers. The designation of the State of Oregon as the Plaintiff-Respondent signifies its role in defending the circuit court's decision, while Billy Lee Oatney Jr., as the Defendant-Appellant, is challenging that prior ruling.

The phrase "argued and submitted" on December 5, 2025, indicates a key stage in the Oregon criminal appeal process where legal counsel formally presented their arguments to the appellate panel, and the court then took the case under advisement for deliberation. While this document confirms the procedural steps, including the involvement of then-Judge Beth L. Roberts at the trial level and Richard L. Wolf as appellate counsel, it does not provide any substantive legal analysis, the specific issues raised on appeal, or the ultimate outcome of the appellate review. It functions purely as a formal record of the case's existence and procedural posture within the Oregon appellate case law framework.

Even without revealing the substantive legal arguments or the final judgment, formal documents like the one pertaining to Oregon State v. Oatney A181144 are indispensable components of the judicial system. They establish the official existence of a legal challenge and provide a clear, dated record of its progression through the courts. Such records are vital for legal professionals, researchers, and the public to track cases, understand the procedural timeline, and identify the parties and judicial officers involved.

This particular document, dated September 16, 2026, confirms that a criminal appeal involving Billy Lee Oatney Jr. was actively moving through the Oregon Court of Appeals, having already been argued and submitted in late 2025. It underscores the structured nature of the legal process, where every step, from the initial circuit court filing (18CR70058) to the appellate review, is meticulously documented. The absence of a substantive then-Judge Beth L. Roberts opinion or a final ruling in this specific record highlights its role as a procedural update rather than a conclusive legal pronouncement.

The provided text is solely the case caption and procedural details; it offers no substantive legal analysis, facts, or holding, thus there is no practical implication for a lawyer or compliance officer beyond identifying the existence of this specific case.

Source: Original reporting via court document