State v. Tanner

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Tanner

854 P.2d 941, 121 Or. App. 104, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1048

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 16, 1993

Docket90C-21505, 90C-21506, 90C-21507. CA A74936 (Control), CA A74937, CA A74938

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 854 P.2d 941 (State v. Tanner) 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. Tanner, 854 P.2d 941, 121 Or. App. 104, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1048 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

*106 DEITS, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of three counts of burglary in the first degree. ORS 164.225. He appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed and the sentencing court’s determination of the length of his sentences using a criminal history score of “E” and not “I,” in violation of OAR 253-12-020(2)(a)(b). We conclude that we lack authority to review the claim of error and affirm.

Through negotiations with the state, defendant agreed to a stipulated facts trial on the three counts of burglary in the first degree, and the state agreed not to indict defendant on other uncharged burglaries. As part of the agreement, defendant also agreed to admit liability for both the charged and uncharged burglaries at sentencing for purposes of setting restitution. There were no other sentencing recommendations in the plea agreement.

In State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993), the Supreme Court held that ORS 138.222(2)(d) precludes appellate review of a sentence resulting from a plea agreement. We have since held, based on Adams, that when a defendant and the state agree that the defendant will plead guilty and that the state will make a recommendation as to the length of incarceration, the sentence “results from” the plea agreement, and ORS 138.222(2)(d) precludes our review of the sentence. State v. Johnston, 120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993). We have also held that when the state and a defendant agree that the defendant will plead guilty and the state will make no recommendation as to the length of the sentence, the sentence also “results from” the plea agreement, and we are precluded from reviewing the sentence. State v. Kilborn, 120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993).

This case presents yet another form of a plea agreement. Here, in exchange for the state’s agreement not to indict defendant on other uncharged burglaries, he agreed to the stipulated facts trial and agreed to admit to liability for the charged and uncharged burglaries at sentencing for purposes of setting restitution. Following the reasoning of State v. Adams, supra, State v. Johnston, supra, and State v'. Kilborn, supra, defendant’s sentence “resulted from” the *107 negotiated agreement with the state, and we are precluded from reviewing it under ORS 138.222(2)(d).

Affirmed.

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

*106 DEITS, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of three counts of burglary in the first degree. ORS 164.225. He appeals from the consecutive sentences imposed and the sentencing court’s determination of the length of his sentences using a criminal history score of “E” and not “I,” in violation of OAR 253-12-020(2)(a)(b). We conclude that we lack authority to review the claim of error and affirm.

Through negotiations with the state, defendant agreed to a stipulated facts trial on the three counts of burglary in the first degree, and the state agreed not to indict defendant on other uncharged burglaries. As part of the agreement, defendant also agreed to admit liability for both the charged and uncharged burglaries at sentencing for purposes of setting restitution. There were no other sentencing recommendations in the plea agreement.

In State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993), the Supreme Court held that ORS 138.222(2)(d) precludes appellate review of a sentence resulting from a plea agreement. We have since held, based on Adams, that when a defendant and the state agree that the defendant will plead guilty and that the state will make a recommendation as to the length of incarceration, the sentence “results from” the plea agreement, and ORS 138.222(2)(d) precludes our review of the sentence. State v. Johnston, 120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993). We have also held that when the state and a defendant agree that the defendant will plead guilty and the state will make no recommendation as to the length of the sentence, the sentence also “results from” the plea agreement, and we are precluded from reviewing the sentence. State v. Kilborn, 120 Or App 462, 852 P2d 935 (1993).

This case presents yet another form of a plea agreement. Here, in exchange for the state’s agreement not to indict defendant on other uncharged burglaries, he agreed to the stipulated facts trial and agreed to admit to liability for the charged and uncharged burglaries at sentencing for purposes of setting restitution. Following the reasoning of State v. Adams, supra, State v. Johnston, supra, and State v'. Kilborn, supra, defendant’s sentence “resulted from” the *107 negotiated agreement with the state, and we are precluded from reviewing it under ORS 138.222(2)(d).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 P.2d 941, 121 Or. App. 104, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tanner-orctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack