State v. La Roda

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. La Roda

622 P.2d 756, 50 Or. App. 181, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2273

Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided January 26, 1981·No. No. CR 79-0449, CA 18797·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant urges that the trial court abused its discretion in accepting his plea of guilty, because, he says, the record demonstrates that the plea was not voluntarily entered. The contention is not within the scope of review on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. ORS 135.050. If the trial court committed error, it was constitutional error and the remedy lies in a post-conviction proceeding. See generally, State v. Jairl, 229 Or 533, 541-42, 368 P2d 323 (1962); State v. Slopak, 3 Or App 532, 475 P2d 421 (1970).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant urges that the trial court abused its discretion in accepting his plea of guilty, because, he says, the record demonstrates that the plea was not voluntarily entered. The contention is not within the scope of review on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea. ORS 135.050. If the trial court committed error, it was constitutional error and the remedy lies in a post-conviction proceeding. See generally, State v. Jairl, 229 Or 533, 541-42, 368 P2d 323 (1962); State v. Slopak, 3 Or App 532, 475 P2d 421 (1970).

Affirmed.

State v. La Roda, 622 P.2d 756, 50 Or. App. 181, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2273 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

622 P.2d 756 (State v. La Roda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related