State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Thomas

844 P.2d 936, 117 Or. App. 533, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2560

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

Docket10-91-08155; CA A73756

StatusPublished

This text of 844 P.2d 936 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 844 P.2d 936, 117 Or. App. 533, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2560 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for sodomy in the first degree. ORS 163.405. He pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 58 months in prison. He contends that the court erroneously believed that it could not impose a term of probation under the sentencing guidelines.

The state argues that, because the sentence was within the presumptive range on the grid, it is not subject to review. ORS 138.222(2)(a). Defendant counters that we may review a claim that

“[t]he sentencing court failed to comply with requirements of law in imposing or failing to impose a sentence.” ORS 138.222(4)(a).

The trial court, defendant contends, concluded that it had no authority to place him on probation. That, he argues, is an error of law, because the court can impose probation as a downward departure. Although we agree with defendant that, if the court was mistaken about its authority to impose a sentence, that would be reviewable, ORS 138.222(4)(a), we do not agree that the trial court was mistaken. The court, in its oral colloquy at sentencing, hinted that it would like to put defendant on probation; however, it finally determined that there were no mitigating factors that justified a downward departure. We do not read the court’s ambivalence as a conclusion that it had no authority to impose probation. The claim of error is not reviewable.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for sodomy in the first degree. ORS 163.405. He pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 58 months in prison. He contends that the court erroneously believed that it could not impose a term of probation under the sentencing guidelines.

The state argues that, because the sentence was within the presumptive range on the grid, it is not subject to review. ORS 138.222(2)(a). Defendant counters that we may review a claim that

“[t]he sentencing court failed to comply with requirements of law in imposing or failing to impose a sentence.” ORS 138.222(4)(a).

The trial court, defendant contends, concluded that it had no authority to place him on probation. That, he argues, is an error of law, because the court can impose probation as a downward departure. Although we agree with defendant that, if the court was mistaken about its authority to impose a sentence, that would be reviewable, ORS 138.222(4)(a), we do not agree that the trial court was mistaken. The court, in its oral colloquy at sentencing, hinted that it would like to put defendant on probation; however, it finally determined that there were no mitigating factors that justified a downward departure. We do not read the court’s ambivalence as a conclusion that it had no authority to impose probation. The claim of error is not reviewable.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 P.2d 936, 117 Or. App. 533, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 2560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack