State v. Doty

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Doty

870 P.2d 868, 127 Or. App. 86, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 381

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 23, 1994

Docket92-1591; CA A79337

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 870 P.2d 868 (State v. Doty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Doty, 870 P.2d 868, 127 Or. App. 86, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 381 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant appeals the length of the post-prison supervision term imposed after he pled guilty to 10 offenses, pursuant to plea negotiations. The state argues that review is precluded by ORS 138.222(2)(d) as a sentence that resulted from a plea agreement.¹ Defendant contends that review is not precluded by State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993), and State v. Johnston, 120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156, rev den 317 Or 272 (1993). He argues that since those cases were decided the legislature amended ORS 138.222(2)(d)² to preclude review of “a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement” and that there was no such sentence in his case.

We do not address our scope of review. As defendant acknowledges, he did not object to the imposition of the post-prison supervision term. He contends, however, that it is error apparent on the face of the record, because the term exceeds that authorized in OAR 253-05-002. The state contends that defendant’s conviction for sexual abuse comes within ORS 144.103,³ and, therefore, a 10-year term of post-prison supervision on defendant’s convictions for sexual abuse in the first degree was not error.

Defendant’s unpreserved claim of error is not an error of law apparent on the face of the record. We have no discretion to consider it. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381, 823 P2d 956 (1991); see also State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993); State v. Castrejon, 317 Or 202, 856 P2d 616 (1993).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant appeals the length of the post-prison supervision term imposed after he pled guilty to 10 offenses, pursuant to plea negotiations. The state argues that review is precluded by ORS 138.222(2)(d) as a sentence that resulted from a plea agreement.¹ Defendant contends that review is not precluded by State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993), and State v. Johnston, 120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156, rev den 317 Or 272 (1993). He argues that since those cases were decided the legislature amended ORS 138.222(2)(d)² to preclude review of “a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement” and that there was no such sentence in his case.

We do not address our scope of review. As defendant acknowledges, he did not object to the imposition of the post-prison supervision term. He contends, however, that it is error apparent on the face of the record, because the term exceeds that authorized in OAR 253-05-002. The state contends that defendant’s conviction for sexual abuse comes within ORS 144.103,³ and, therefore, a 10-year term of post-prison supervision on defendant’s convictions for sexual abuse in the first degree was not error.

Defendant’s unpreserved claim of error is not an error of law apparent on the face of the record. We have no discretion to consider it. Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 381, 823 P2d 956 (1991); see also State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993); State v. Castrejon, 317 Or 202, 856 P2d 616 (1993).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 P.2d 868, 127 Or. App. 86, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-doty-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack