Note: This motion is as received from the Oregon Attorney General. Page breaks have been moved slightly to avoid page splits in the middle of paragraphs. Hand written entries (signatures) are shown as a graphic image. There was a typographical error in the submitted response where all pages were numbered as page 1. This has been corrected in this version for ease of reading.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Respondent files this response to defendant's "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Supplement Brief and Deny further Extensions of Time." Defendant erroneously argues that the state is responsible for most of the delay in this appeal. In fact, the state is responsible for very little of the delay in this case because defendant's motions to supplement the record and to file a supplemental brief tolled the time for the state to file its respondent's brief.

On September 12, 2006, the state filed its first motion for extension of time of 161 days for filing the respondent's brief. But, on September 18, 2006 just six days later-defendant filed a motion to supplement the record. That motion tolled the time for filing the respondent's brief. Although the state filed a second motion for an extension of time on February 20, 2007, this court took no action on that motion because defendant's motion to supplemental the record was pending. When the court granted defendant's motion on May 4, 2007, the court ordered the respondent's brief due on June 1, 2007. On that date, the state filed want amounted to its second motion for an extension of time. But, on June 5, 2007 just four days later defendant filed this motion to supplement the record again tolling the time for the filing of the respondent's brief. Accordingly, the state is responsible for very little of the delay in this appeal. Rather, defendant is responsible for delays related to the filing of motions to supplement the record and to file a supplemental brief. While those motions were and are pending, the state was not working on this matter because the issues and the record are subject to change.

For the above reasons, the state respectfully asks this court to deny defendant's motion to "Deny further Extensions of Time."

The state does not object to defendant's motion to file a supplemental brief.

Respectfully submitted, HARDY MYERS #64077 Attorney General MARY H. WILLIAMS #91124 Solicitor General Senior Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent State of Oregon

NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that I directed the original Respondent's Response to Defendant's Motion - Other to be filed with the State Court Administrator, Records Section, at 1163 State Street, Salem, Oregon 97301-2563, on June 19, 2007.

I further certify that I directed the Respondent's Response to Defendant's Motion - Other to be served upon Brian P. Carr, pro se appellant, on June 19, 2007, by mailing a copy, with postage prepaid, in an envelope addressed to:

Brian P. Carr
11301 NE 7th St. Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684

Senior Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff-Respondent