State v. Davis-McCoy

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 10-30-2019
  • Case #: A167424
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; Egan, C.J.; & Powers, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“The appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant." ORS 38.105(9).

Defendant appealed a judgment revoking his probation on two felony counts, and imposing consecutive sanctions of 28 months of incarceration with two years of post-prison supervision for each count. On appeal, Defendant argued that his terms of incarceration are unlawful because they exceed the maximum presumptive prison terms that could initially be imposed under the sentencing guidelines. In response, the State argued that because the Defendant had stipulated to those terms of incarceration as a plea agreement; therefore, Defendant's  claim of error is not reviewable.  “The appellate court has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant." ORS 38.105(9). The Court held that Defendant's challenge is not reviewable under ORS 138.105(9). Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top