The Oregon Supreme Court denied a petition for review in *State v. Farnham* on December 11, 2025, leaving intact a criminal conviction from Coos County Circuit Court. The decision effectively ends the appellate process for defendant Michael Daniel Farnham, whose case had been under review since August.
The case originated in Coos County Circuit Court under Judge Martin E. Stone, where Farnham was convicted on charges that led to his appeal through Oregon's court system. Court records show the case number CC 24CR00089, indicating a 2024 criminal filing that moved through the appeals process over the course of 2025.
Farnham's legal team, led by Deputy Public Defender Meredith Allen of the Oregon Public Defense Commission in Salem, filed the petition for review on August 12, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender of the Criminal Appellate Section, also appeared on the petition. The state chose not to file opposition papers, with court records showing "no appearance contra" for the respondent.
The Oregon Supreme Court considered the petition and held it under advisement following oral arguments on October 7, 2025. The court's brief per curiam decision simply stated that "the petition for review is denied," without elaborating on the reasoning behind the denial.
While the main decision was unanimous in denying review, Justice DeHoog filed a concurring opinion that addressed specific legal issues raised in the Court of Appeals decision. Justice DeHoog wrote that while he concurred in denying the petition, he expressed "no opinion regarding the overall correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision."
The concurring opinion focused on what Justice DeHoog characterized as a contradiction between the Court of Appeals' reasoning and existing Oregon Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, the justice took issue with the appellate court's interpretation of statutes governing driver's license penalties for fleeing or attempting to elude police officers.
According to Justice DeHoog's concurrence, the Court of Appeals had concluded that ORS 809.411(5), which provides for a 90-day driver's license suspension for first convictions, applies only to misdemeanor convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude. The appeals court further determined that ORS 809.409(4), which mandates a one-year driver's license revocation, applies specifically to felony convictions for the same offense.
The Court of Appeals had reasoned that the legislature intended to impose more severe penalties for felony versions of the offense by requiring longer periods without driving privileges. Justice DeHoog quoted the appeals court's analysis: "By splitting the offense, the legislature was able to put into effect its policy of punishing more dangerous actions more severely. Had it intended for the punishment to remain the same between both methods of committing attempting to elude, it would not have created separate statutes with different penalties."
However, Justice DeHoog indicated this interpretation "directly contradicts this court's case law," though the concurrence was incomplete in the available records, cutting off mid-sentence in the Court of Appeals quotation.
The case reflects the typical appellate process in Oregon's three-tier court system. After the initial conviction in Coos County Circuit Court, Farnham appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which issued a decision catalogued as 341 Or App 787, 575 P3d 196 (2025). The Oregon Supreme Court's denial of review means the Court of Appeals decision stands as the final word in the case.
Oregon's Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction over most appeals, meaning it can choose which cases to review rather than being required to hear all appeals. The court typically accepts cases that present novel legal questions, conflicts between appellate decisions, or matters of significant public importance. The denial of review in *Farnham* suggests the court did not find these factors present, despite Justice DeHoog's concerns about the appeals court's statutory interpretation.
The case appears to involve charges related to fleeing or attempting to elude police officers, based on the statutory references in Justice DeHoog's concurrence. This type of charge can range from misdemeanor to felony depending on circumstances such as the manner of driving, whether injury occurred, or the defendant's criminal history.
While the Oregon Supreme Court's denial effectively ends Farnham's state court appeals, the decision does not preclude potential federal habeas corpus proceedings if constitutional issues were raised. However, such proceedings would require demonstrating that federal constitutional rights were violated during the state court process.
The case highlights ongoing interpretive challenges in Oregon criminal law, particularly regarding legislative intent in penalty structures for related offenses. Justice DeHoog's concurrence suggests these issues may resurface in future cases where the statutory interpretation questions can be more fully addressed.