State v. McCallister

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. McCallister

686 P.2d 1044, 69 Or. App. 560, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 29, 1984

Docket83-6-247; CA A30135

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 686 P.2d 1044 (State v. McCallister) 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. McCallister, 686 P.2d 1044, 69 Or. App. 560, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for rape in the first degree on the ground that the trial court did not orally give him all the statutorily required information before accepting his guilty plea. ORS 135.385(2). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ORS 138.050 permits an appeal from a conviction based on a guilty plea if the trial court “imposes a sentence that is cruel, unusual or excessive in light of the nature and background of the offender or the facts and circumstances of the offense.” On such an appeal, we may consider only “whether an excessive, cruel or unusual punishment has been imposed.” In State v. Reichert, 39 Or App 905, 593 P2d 1298 (1979), and subsequent cases, we have also permitted appeals when procedural errors in accepting a guilty plea rendered the conviction voidable. However, the Supreme Court has recently undercut the basis for those decisions. In State v. Clevenger, 297 Or 234, 683 P2d 1360 (1984), it read ORS 138.050 literally and held that the only issue available on a direct appeal from a conviction based on a guilty plea is the propriety of the sentence; any other error must be raised by post-conviction relief or habeas corpus, if it is reviewable at all. We conclude that State v. Reichert, supra, and similar cases are impliedly overruled. Because defendant’s assignments of error do not involve the sentence, we are without jurisdiction to consider them.¹

Appeal dismissed.

¹

We recognize the possibility that our holding will leave defendant with no recourse for the trial court’s alleged error, because statutory violations are not reviewable in post-conviction relief. ORS 138.530. It is not certain, however, that defendant will be without relief. The state has consistently argued that a defendant may raise issues of this kind by post-conviction relief, see State v. Clevenger, supra, 297 Or at 239 n 6, and it may be correct. The issues defendant raises have constitutional overtones; even if they did not, the trial court’s failure to follow the statutory requirements may be a denial of the right to trial guaranteed by Or Const. Art I, § 11. See State v. Clevenger, supra, 297 Or at 247 (Linde, J., concurring). Constitutional violations are cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. ORS 138.530(1). Resolution of these questions must, however, await another day.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for rape in the first degree on the ground that the trial court did not orally give him all the statutorily required information before accepting his guilty plea. ORS 135.385(2). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ORS 138.050 permits an appeal from a conviction based on a guilty plea if the trial court “imposes a sentence that is cruel, unusual or excessive in light of the nature and background of the offender or the facts and circumstances of the offense.” On such an appeal, we may consider only “whether an excessive, cruel or unusual punishment has been imposed.” In State v. Reichert, 39 Or App 905, 593 P2d 1298 (1979), and subsequent cases, we have also permitted appeals when procedural errors in accepting a guilty plea rendered the conviction voidable. However, the Supreme Court has recently undercut the basis for those decisions. In State v. Clevenger, 297 Or 234, 683 P2d 1360 (1984), it read ORS 138.050 literally and held that the only issue available on a direct appeal from a conviction based on a guilty plea is the propriety of the sentence; any other error must be raised by post-conviction relief or habeas corpus, if it is reviewable at all. We conclude that State v. Reichert, supra, and similar cases are impliedly overruled. Because defendant’s assignments of error do not involve the sentence, we are without jurisdiction to consider them.¹

Appeal dismissed.

¹

We recognize the possibility that our holding will leave defendant with no recourse for the trial court’s alleged error, because statutory violations are not reviewable in post-conviction relief. ORS 138.530. It is not certain, however, that defendant will be without relief. The state has consistently argued that a defendant may raise issues of this kind by post-conviction relief, see State v. Clevenger, supra, 297 Or at 239 n 6, and it may be correct. The issues defendant raises have constitutional overtones; even if they did not, the trial court’s failure to follow the statutory requirements may be a denial of the right to trial guaranteed by Or Const. Art I, § 11. See State v. Clevenger, supra, 297 Or at 247 (Linde, J., concurring). Constitutional violations are cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. ORS 138.530(1). Resolution of these questions must, however, await another day.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 P.2d 1044, 69 Or. App. 560, 1984 Ore. App. LEXIS 4093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mccallister-orctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack