State v. Thomas

ORS 138.105(9) bars review when a "[sentence is] imposed pursuant to agreement [between the defendant and the state], it [is] a specific sentence, and the trial court imposed that agreed-upon specific sentence." State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 110-13, 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017).

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment that revoked her probation as well as imposed two consecutive periods of 25 months of incarceration. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court's imposition of consecutive periods of incarceration. Defendant argued that under OAR 213-012-0040(2), the imposition of consecutive sanctions was unlawful because there was only one supervision violation and because the underlying crime involved only one victim. In response, the State argued that the assignment of error was un-reviewable under ORS 138.105(9) because Defendant stipulated to the consecutive-sentencing order at the change-of-plea hearing. ORS 138.105(9) bars review when a "[sentence is] imposed pursuant to agreement [between the defendant and the state], it [is] a specific sentence, and the trial court imposed that agreed-upon specific sentence." State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 110-13, 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017). The Court held that because Defendant had stipulated to a specific sentence, and because the trial court imposed that sentence, her claim was not reviewable. Affirmed.