Notes of Decisions
This section limits the scope of direct appeals from a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea to matters pertaining to the sentence. State v. VanValkenberg, 10 Or App 51, 498 P2d 767 (1972)
Appellate court hearing of an appeal by defendant made after verdict but before sentence is inappropriate because the defendant can appeal only from a "judgment" or "judge on a conviction." State v. McFarland, 10 Or App 90, 497 P2d 1283 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
In order for a reviewing court to exercise its powers to review an alleged excessive sentence, the court must have before it some evidence as to the basis of the sentencing court's action. State v. Foltz, 14 Or App 482, 513 P2d 1208 (1973), Sup Ct review denied
Issue relating to duration of sentence is reviewable whether or not issue was raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction proceeding. DeBolt v. Cupp, 19 Or App 545, 528 P2d 601 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
An appeal from imposition of special costs was properly considered. State v. Olson, 22 Or App 344, 539 P2d 166 (1975)
The Court of Appeal's jurisdiction over an appeal following a guilty plea is limited to matters specified in this section. State v. Waggoner, 25 Or App 403, 549 P2d 685 (1976)
Order denying withdrawal of a guilty plea is not appealable. State v. Burchett, 26 Or App 637, 553 P2d 1074 (1976)
Probation condition alleged by defendant to be unreasonable was reviewable. State v. Fisher, 32 Or App 465, 574 P2d 354 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Intervention by Court of Appeals in sentencing decisions will arise only if trial court fails to comply with statutory duty to consider presentence report, fails to state on record reasons for sentence imposed, or sentence imposed is "clearly mistaken" or "clear abuse of discretion." State v. Dinkel, 34 Or App 375, 579 P2d 245 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
There is no requirement that trial court support sentence imposed by explicit reference to presentence report. State v. Rogers, 34 Or App 523, 579 P2d 258 (1978)
Appeal from suspended sentence is also governed by ORS 138.040 (Appeal by defendant generally), and thus appellate review was precluded where defendant, who had pleaded guilty and received suspended sentence, failed to file appeal made under this section within period required by ORS 138.040 (Appeal by defendant generally). State v. Martinez, 35 Or App 381, 581 P2d 955 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Record was insufficient to support court order which, as condition of probation, prohibited defendant from associating with ex-convicts including her husband. State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 580 P2d 536 (1978)
Probation order is appealable. State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 580 P2d 536 (1978)
Issue of whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to permit defendant to withdraw guilty plea cannot be raised on direct appeal. State v. Allen, 68 Or App 5, 680 P2d 997 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Defendant convicted on plea of guilty or no contest has no right to direct appeal of any matter relating to conviction other than sentence; overruling to extent of inconsistency, State v. Burnett, 228 Or 556, 365 P2d 1060 (1961), State v. Bloor, 229 Or 49, 365 P2d 103, 365 P2d 105 (1961), State v. Gidley, 231 Or 89, 371 P2d 992 (1962), State v. Cornelius, 249 Or 454, 438 P2d 1020 (1968), State v. Evans, 290 Or 707, 625 P2d 1300 (1981). State v. Clevenger, 297 Or 234, 683 P2d 1360 (1984)
Probationary condition that defendant no longer live in Troutdale was broader than necessary to achieve purpose of probation. State v. Jacobs, 71 Or App 560, 692 P2d 1387 (1984)
Where defendant has had alcohol and controlled substance convictions and was convicted in present case for unprovoked assault, probation condition that he abstain from consuming alcohol is not "cruel, unusual or excessive in light of the nature and background of the offender or the facts and circumstances of the offense." State v. Douglas, 82 Or App 222, 728 P2d 548 (1986)
When defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced under dangerous offender statute and trial court denied defendant opportunity to examine psychiatrist who filed written report for sentencing purposes, this section did not authorize appeal. State v. Loyer, 303 Or 612, 740 P2d 177 (1987)
Where court suspended sentence and imposed five-years probation for Class A misdemeanor and after probation was revoked, sentenced defendant to five-years imprisonment, review allowed by this section determined maximum penalty was one-year imprisonment and sentence imposed exceeded sentence allowable by law. State of Oregon v. Seibert, 95 Or App 742, 770 P2d 613 (1989)
Portion of sentence referring defendant to institution for mental health evaluation and treatment was without statutory authority and thus exceeded maximum sentence allowable by law. State v. Johnson, 96 Or App 641, 773 P2d 812 (1989)
Where defendant pleaded guilty, order of probation is appealable although evidence exists that conditions restricting alcohol consumption are reasonably related to protection of public or defendant's reformation. State v. Dirksen, 97 Or App 272, 775 P2d 909 (1989)
Where defendant pleaded guilty and court imposed sentence, contentions that court's findings are insufficient to support imposition of dangerous offender sanctions or consecutive sentences do not challenge length or constitutionality of sentences and are, therefore, outside scope of review. State v. Gehring, 97 Or App 325, 775 P2d 918 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
Under this section and ORS 138.040 (Appeal by defendant generally) criminal defendant may appeal from order which revokes his probation and reinstates his previously suspended sentence. State v. Altman, 97 Or App 462, 777 P2d 969 (1989)
Where defendant pleaded guilty and court imposed sentence, review is controlled by this section and defendant's contention that court did not adequately assess his desire to proceed without counsel during probation revocation is beyond scope of review. State v. Humphries, 97 Or App 682, 776 P2d 1326 (1989), Sup Ct review denied
After defendant pleaded guilty, his contention that he should have been allowed to cross-examine psychologist who submitted report for imposition of dangerous offender sanction was beyond scope of review. State v. Phillips, 99 Or App 375, 781 P2d 1272 (1989)
Appellate review of order imposing sentence on defendant who has pleaded guilty is limited to "the sentence and whether it is longer than specified for the crime or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual." State v. Blaney, 101 Or App 273, 790 P2d 549 (1990)
ORS 138.222 (Scope of review of sentence imposed for felony committed on or after November 1, 1989) precludes review of sentence imposed under plea agreement and, where defendant was aware of and did not dispute sentencing classification of crime to which he pleaded guilty, classification of crime seriousness was not reviewable. State v. Stevens, 111 Or App 258, 826 P2d 12 (1992)
Where restitution was ordered without following proper procedure, restitution order was reviewable as disposition exceeding maximum allowed by law. State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416, 833 P2d 321 (1992)
Where defendant was convicted in stipulated facts trial rather than after plea of guilty or no contest, this section was inapplicable and sentence was reviewable on direct appeal under ORS 138.040 (Appeal by defendant generally) and 138.053 (Judgments and orders that are subject to appeal). Schantz v. Maass, 114 Or App 167, 834 P2d 508 (1992)
After defendant pleads no contest and is sentenced, he cannot attempt to circumvent statute and seek review by arguing that his conduct amounted to different crime. State v. Woodard, 121 Or App 483, 855 P2d 1139 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
On reconsideration defendant's claim of error in court's denial of motion to rescind remand order and return case to juvenile court was not related to sentencing and therefore was beyond scope of review. State v. Davilla, 124 Or App 87, 860 P2d 894 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Provision in stipulated sentencing agreement that reserved defendant's right to appeal lawfulness of sentence could not confer review authority. State v. Upton, 132 Or App 579, 889 P2d 376 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Subject matter jurisdiction of trial court cannot be raised on appeal. State v. Belzons, 140 Or App 198, 915 P2d 428 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Remand following post-conviction relief does not permit resentencing on all convictions. State v. Coburn, 146 Or App 653, 934 P2d 579 (1997)
Where defendant who pleaded guilty or no contest fails to make required colorable showing regarding disposition, proper action is for appellate court to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction. State v. Stubbs, 193 Or App 595, 91 P3d 774 (2004)
To be appealable under this section, "disposition" must either be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual or exceed maximum allowable by law because not imposed consistently with statutory requirements. State v. Stubbs, 193 Or App 595, 91 P3d 774 (2004)
Appeal is not available under this section from municipal court conviction for municipal code violation. City of Lowell v. Wilson, 197 Or App 291, 105 P3d 856 (2005), Sup Ct review denied
Completed Citations
State v. Wolberg, 5 Or App 295, 483 P2d 104 (1971), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 404 US 1015 (1972)