State v. Vadlamani

No. 1115 November 12, 2026 747 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. SUNIL K. VADLAMANI, Defendant-Appellant. Klamath County Circuit Court 25VI124346; A189287 Marci Warner Adkisson, Judge. Submitted October 6, 2026. Edgar Diaz filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and O’Connor, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 748 State v. Vadlamani PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a judgment finding defen- dant in violation of ORS 811.100, violating the basic speed rule. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred when it relied solely on an officer’s testimony related to the mar- gin of error in his radar device, without any “foundational evidence,” and when it “treated the radar reading as infalli- ble.” Defendant preserved neither of those issues below and does not ask us to review them as plain error. We therefore decline to do so and affirm. See State v. Ardizzone, 270 Or App 666, 673, 349 P3d 597, rev den, 358 Or 145 (2015) (“[W]e ordinarily will not proceed to the question of plain error unless an appellant has explicitly asked us to do so because it is incumbent upon the appellant to explain to us why an error satisfies the requisites of plain error and, further, why we should exercise our discretion to correct that error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Affirmed.