The Oregon Supreme Court denied a petition for review in *State v. Farnham* on December 11, 2025, effectively upholding a Court of Appeals decision in a criminal case that addressed driver's license penalties for fleeing or attempting to elude police officers. The per curiam decision was brief, but Justice DeHoog filed a concurring opinion that highlighted concerns about the appellate court's legal reasoning.
Michael Daniel Farnham, represented by the Oregon Public Defense Commission, had petitioned the state's highest court to review the Court of Appeals decision in case number CA A183734. The case originated in Coos County Circuit Court under Judge Martin E. Stone. Deputy Public Defender Meredith Allen filed the petition on August 12, 2025, with assistance from Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender of the Criminal Appellate Section. The state did not file a response to the petition.
The Supreme Court considered the petition and held it under advisement following oral arguments on October 7, 2025, before issuing its denial on December 11. The court's per curiam decision was straightforward, simply stating that "the petition for review is denied."
However, Justice DeHoog's concurring opinion revealed significant concerns about the legal analysis employed by the Court of Appeals. While Justice DeHoog agreed with the denial of review, the justice took the unusual step of writing separately to address what was characterized as a fundamental error in the appellate court's reasoning.
The central issue involved the interpretation of two related Oregon statutes governing driver's license penalties for fleeing or attempting to elude police. ORS 809.411(5) provides for a 90-day driver's license suspension for a first conviction, while ORS 809.409(4) mandates a one-year driver's license revocation for certain convictions of the same underlying offense.
According to Justice DeHoog's opinion, the Court of Appeals concluded that ORS 809.411(5) applies only to misdemeanor convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude, while ORS 809.409(4) applies to felony convictions for the same offense. The appellate court reasoned that the legislature intended to punish the more serious felony offense more severely by imposing lengthier driving privilege restrictions.
The Court of Appeals stated that "by splitting the offense, the legislature was able to put into effect its policy of punishing more dangerous actions more severely." The court suggested that if the legislature had intended for punishments to remain the same between different methods of committing the offense, it would not have created separate statutory provisions with different penalty structures.
Justice DeHoog took issue with this reasoning, writing that the Court of Appeals' rationale "directly contradicts this court's case law." However, the concurring opinion did not elaborate on which specific Supreme Court precedents were contradicted or provide detailed analysis of why the appellate court's interpretation was problematic.
The justice was careful to note that the concurrence addressed only "one aspect of the Court of Appeals' rationale" and explicitly stated that no opinion was being expressed "regarding the overall correctness of the Court of Appeals' decision." This suggests that while Justice DeHoog found fault with the court's legal reasoning on the driver's license penalty issue, other aspects of the decision may have been sound.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in interpreting Oregon's driving penalty statutes, particularly when different provisions appear to overlap or conflict. The distinction between misdemeanor and felony fleeing charges can have significant consequences for defendants beyond criminal penalties, as driver's license suspensions and revocations directly impact individuals' ability to work and meet daily responsibilities.
The Oregon Public Defense Commission's involvement in the case demonstrates the significance of the legal issues presented. The commission typically handles appeals in cases involving important questions of criminal law or where defendants face substantial penalties.
While the Supreme Court's denial of review means the Court of Appeals decision stands, Justice DeHoog's concurring opinion serves as guidance for future cases involving similar statutory interpretation issues. The opinion suggests that lower courts should be more careful to align their reasoning with established Supreme Court precedent when analyzing penalty provisions.
The case originated in Coos County, located in southwestern Oregon along the Pacific coast. Criminal cases in rural counties like Coos often involve unique circumstances that can lead to appellate review when they raise broader questions of state law interpretation.
For practitioners in Oregon criminal law, the case underscores the importance of carefully analyzing multiple statutory provisions that may apply to a single course of conduct. The interplay between different penalty statutes requires precise legal analysis to ensure appropriate sentencing and avoid constitutional issues.
The denial of review brings finality to Farnham's case, though the specific facts underlying the fleeing charge were not detailed in the Supreme Court's order. The case will likely be cited in future disputes over the proper interpretation of Oregon's driving penalty statutes.