State v. Sager

274 P.3d 892, 249 Or. App. 255, 2012 WL 1138913, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 398

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: April 4, 2012
• Docket: 02P3459; A144362
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant, who was convicted of assaulting a public safety officer, seeks to appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for a corrected judgment pursuant to ORS 137.754. 1 As explained in State v. Sager (A143978), 249 Or App 251, 274 P3d 890 (2012), when a trial court denies a motion for a corrected judgment pursuant to ORS 137.754, the court does not alter defendant’s sentence and, instead, leaves the original conviction and sentence untouched. See ORS 138.053(1). 2 Accordingly, in light of our holding in State v. Hart, 188 Or App 650, 653, 72 P3d 671, rev den, 336 Or 126 (2003), the trial court’s denial of a motion pursuant to ORS 137.754 is not appealable.

Appeal dismissed.

1 The document entered by the trial court is entitled “Judgment of Conviction and Sentence.” Despite the title, however, in the document, the court simply denied defendant’s motion for a corrected judgment.

2 ORS 138.053(1) provides:

“A judgment, or order of a court, if the order is imposed after judgment, is subject to the appeal provisions and limitations on review under ORS 138.040 and 138.050 if the disposition includes any of the following:

“(a) Imposition of a sentence on conviction.

“(b) Suspension of imposition or execution of any part of a sentence.

“(c) Extension of a period of probation.

“(d) Imposition or modification of a condition of probation or of sentence suspension.

“(e) Imposition or execution of a sentence upon revocation of probation or sentence suspension.”