State v. Grant

(1) Generally, a court has no authority to review a conviction when a defendant pleads guilty. See ORS 138.105(5); see, e.g., State v. Jones, 311 Or. App. 685, 688-89 (2021). (2) A judgment imposing sanctions and continuing probation is not appealable. See ORS 138.035(3); see e.g., State v. Flores, 317 Or. App. 288, 292 (2022).

Defendant entered a guilty plea, which included a deferred-sentencing agreement under which Count 1 if Defendant complied with his probation under Count 2. The trial court determined that Defendant violated his probation under Count 2 and entered a supplemental judgment convicting Defendant of Count 1 and converting his probation under Count 2 to formal probation. Defendant appealed both judgments. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in determining that he had violated his deferred-sentencing agreement. Generally, a court has no authority to review a conviction when a defendant pleads guilty. See ORS 138.105(5); see, e.g., State v. Jones, 311 Or. App. 685, 688-89 (2021). The Court explained that the legislature has precluded review under these circumstances. Affirmed.

Defendant also argued that in converting his bench probation to formal probation the trial court modified a condition of probation. A judgment imposing sanctions and continuing probation is not appealable. See ORS 138.035(3); see e.g., State v. Flores, 317 Or. App. 288, 292 (2022). The Court reasoned that deleting a special condition of probation does not constitute imposing a new or modified condition because it merely removed a previously imposed condition of probation. The judgment on Count 2 is not appealable. Dismissed regarding probation on Count 2, otherwise affirmed.