State v. Colgrove

ORS 138.105(5) states “[t]he appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest.”

Defendant appealed the termination of her DUII diversion program and her DUII conviction after she failed to fulfill the requirements of the diversion program. In order to enter the diversion program, Defendant pled guilty to the DUII. Defendant assigned error to the determination that the appellate court cannot review convictions based on a defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant argued that conviction under ORS 128.105(5) means “finding of guilt” and that the statute should be read narrowly. In response, State argued that conviction means “a judgment of conviction” and that the appellate court could not review determinations of guilt. ORS 138.105(5) states “[t]he appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest.” The Court reasoned that conviction refers to the “judgment of conviction” becasue the text of the statute, the statutory context (related to other statutes and preexisting common law), and the legislative history. In 2017 SB 896, the legislature showed intent to preclude appellate courts from reviewing determinations of guilt in judgments based on guilty or no contest pleas. Lastly, the court found no conflicts with the Oregon or U.S. Constitutions. Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction was not appealable because she had pled guilty. Affirmed.