State v. Adams

Decision Date11 February 1993
Citation847 P.2d 397,315 Or. 359
PartiesSTATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review/Petitioner on Review, v. Timothy Scott ADAMS, Petitioner on Review/Respondent on Review. CC 90-1081; CA A66738; SC S39019, S39080.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review/respondent on review Timothy Scott Adams. With her on the petition and the response was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review/petitioner on review State of Oregon. With him on the petition were Charles S. Crookham, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Timothy A. Sylwester, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.

GRABER, Justice.

The issue that we decide in this case relates to the scope of direct appellate review of a sentence imposed under the recently adopted sentencing guidelines: Does ORS 138.222 permit appellate review of a sentence imposed pursuant to an agreement between defendant and the state, where the sentencing court accepted defendant's stipulated sentencing guidelines grid block classification and approved the corresponding stipulated sentence on the record, and where defendant contends for the first time on appeal that the sentence was a "departure" sentence and that the sentencing court did not make the statutorily required findings on the record to support that sentence? We hold that ORS 138.222 precludes appellate review of defendant's sentence. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, State v. Adams, 110 Or.App. 434, 823 P.2d 992 (1992), and affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Defendant was charged with murder, ORS 163.115, for a shooting that occurred on or about May 1, 1990. He filed a pretrial notice of his intent to rely on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance. ORS 163.135.

Because defendant committed the crime after November 1, 1989, a felony conviction for that crime is subject to the sentencing guidelines. ORS 137.010(1), 137.120(2). Under those guidelines, a conviction for murder carries a mandatory life sentence with a 10-year minimum plus the possibility of a 25-year minimum. ORS 163.115(3). If, however, defendant had prevailed on his defense, he would have been convicted of first-degree manslaughter. ORS 163.118(1)(b). Given defendant's criminal history, his maximum sentence under the sentencing guidelines for that offense would have been 70 months. OAR 253-04-001 and Appendix 1.

Based on the facts of the case, each side was concerned that the other could prevail if the case went to trial. The parties therefore negotiated a compromise plea agreement. When the parties appeared before the court, 1 the following exchange took place:

"[PROSECUTOR]: * * * It's my understanding at this time, Your Honor, that we have reached an agreement and I've conferred with the attorneys for the defense and they're in agreement and we're prepared at this time to propose the agreement to the Court to see if the Court will accept it.

"[COURT]: Very well.

"[PROSECUTOR]: It is my understanding that the defendant is willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the charge of Murder and plead guilty to the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree. Actually he's gonna plead no contest to the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree, and that he will get an agreed upon stipulated sentence by both sides of 84 months with the Department of Corrections, which under the new sentencing guidelines, Your Honor, would be 10-E on the grid. * * *

"[COURT]: Very well. [Defense counsel]?

"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's correct, Your Honor. [Defendant] is here. We've discussed the proposed agreement with him. He's agreed to it. The stipulated sentence is above what he would have received had he been convicted of this charge, which we figure he would have been in grid block G-10, but he's agreed to the additional time as a means of settling this.

" * * * I'll tell the Court the reason for the no contest plea, and the settlement on this charge is * * * we realize that there's sufficient evidence on the other side of the case that the Jury could convict him of [murder], so that's the reason we're doing it the way we're doing it.

"[COURT]: Okay. [Defendant], I need to address some questions to you. I will tell you right off the start that the Court is prepared to accept that plea if you tender it. I want to review with you just briefly the statutory provisions that govern this trial and plea, and they are, as the Court understands it, controlled by the new sentencing guidelines where the Court has--each judge in this state is bound to follow those guidelines.

" * * *

" * * * I would tell you that if you are convicted of Murder, if you go to trial, the sentencing guidelines would fall somewhere--I would take it to be a sentence of either 120 months or 121 months * * *. Would that be correct, based on his criminal history? * * *

"[PROSECUTOR]: I believe he would probably fit in 11-G, Your Honor, which has a range from 129 to 134 months because he has four nonperson-type convictions.

" * * *

"[COURT]: * * *

"I would tell you secondly, [defendant], that a plea of no contest, for all practical purposes on the records of the state, is a conviction * * *. Do you understand these matters? You've been able to go over with Counsel those matters?

"[DEFENDANT]: Yes, sir.

" * * *

"[COURT]: Very well. So you're telling me that your plea is knowingly made by you and voluntarily made by you?

"[DEFENDANT]: Right.

"[COURT]: Very well. The Court will accept your plea and will accept the sentence imposed--that has been agreed upon.

"Is that a stipulated sentencing agreement?

"[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, Your Honor.

" * * *

"[COURT]: Very well. You may--[Defendant], you may stand for sentencing.

"Pursuant to the stipulated plea agreement and the stipulated sentencing order, [defendant], the Court sentences you * * * for a term of 84 months * * *."

The judgment stated:

"FINDINGS: The applicable grid block is 10 G

The stipulated grid block is 10 E

The stipulated sentence is 84 months

"ORDERED: The defendant shall be sentenced to the legal and physical custody of the Corrections Division for a term of eighty-four (84) months." 2

In summary, the trial court was advised by the prosecutor that, based on defendant's criminal history, his grid block classification on a conviction for murder would have been 11G. For the same reason, on a conviction for manslaughter, defendant's grid block classification would have been 10G. However, the parties agreed to a stipulated grid block classification of 10E, expressly because the sentence to which they had agreed was within the presumptive range for that grid block. See ORS 135.407(1) and OAR 253-07-002(1) (an offender's criminal history classification shall be accurately represented to the sentencing judge in the plea agreement); ORS 135.407(2), ORS 135.407(3), and OAR 253-07-003 (subject to OAR 253-07-002 and the approval of the sentencing judge, the parties may stipulate to a grid block classification within the sentencing guidelines; if the sentencing judge accepts the stipulated grid block classification and imposes a sentence other than the presumptive sentence for the stipulated grid block, the sentence is a departure); ORS 135.407(4) and OAR 253-07-004 (the parties may stipulate to a specific sentence within the presumptive sentence range for the stipulated grid block classification).

Defendant did not suggest to the trial court that the sentence was a departure sentence, that findings should be made, OAR 253-08-001, or that appropriate findings could not be made. On appeal, however, he assigned as error the trial court's actions in "imposing a departure sentence" and in failing to state "findings of facts * * * to support the imposition of a departure sentence."

The Court of Appeals held, first, that it could review defendant's claim under ORS 138.222(4)(a), quoted below. State v. Adams, supra, 110 Or.App. at 436-37, 823 P.2d 992. Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992. We disagree with the first holding and, consequently, do not reach the second.

"The right to appeal is statutory and subject to any limitations imposed by the statute conferring the right." Logsdon v. State and Dell, 234 Or. 66, 70, 380 P.2d 111 (1963). Here, the right to appeal is governed by ORS 138.222 and is subject to any limitations therein. ORS 138.222 provides in part:

"(2) On appeal from a judgment of conviction entered for a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989, the appellate court shall not review:

" * * *

"(d) Any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record.

"(e) Except as authorized in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, any other issue related to sentencing.

" * * *

"(4) In any appeal, the appellate court may review a claim that:

"(a) The sentencing court failed to comply with requirements of law in imposing or failing to impose a sentence[.]" (Emphasis added.)

When construing a statute, we seek to ascertain the legislature's intent. ORS 174.020; State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Ashley, 312 Or. 169, 174, 818 P.2d 1270 (1991). We begin with the text and context of the statute. ORS 174.010; Porter v. Hill, 314 Or. 86, 91, 838 P.2d 45 (1992).

Defendant first argues that ORS 138.222(3) and (4) are exceptions to all of the limitations in ORS 138.222(2). We disagree. The exception is stated in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) and not in the introductory portion of subsection (2). The wording of the statute clearly demonstrates that ORS 138.222(3) and (4) are exceptions only to ORS 138.222(2)(e).

Alternatively, defendant argues that ORS 138.222(2)(a) through (d) are narrow prohibitions, precluding review only of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • State ex rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1997
    ...to the second step of the inquiry: whether ORS 138.222(4)(a) nonetheless permits review of the issues presented. In State v. Adams, 315 Or. 359, 365-67, 847 P.2d 397 (1993), this court held that " ORS 138.222 (3) and (4) are exceptions only to ORS 138.222(2)(e)" but not to ORS 138.222(2)(a)......
  • State v. Rusen
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • May 12, 2022
    ...adoption" of the rule or statute "forms a part of the context.").This court first construed the reviewability bar in State v. Adams , 315 Or. 359, 367, 847 P.2d 397 (1993), in which we held that former ORS 138.222(2)(d) (1989)—when applicable—precluded review of a component term of a senten......
  • State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. S.P.
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 2008
    ...stipulate to other things?'" 323 Or. at 615, 920 P.2d 134 (Van Hoomissen, J., concurring) (quoting State v. Adams, 315 Or. 359, 368-69, 847 P.2d 397 (1993) (Van Hoomissen, J., concurring)) (emphasis added). Accord Kitzman, 323 Or. at 605 n. 17, 920 P.2d 134 ("[N]othing in our opinion today ......
  • State v. Kitzman
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1996
    ...the parties' stipulation that the child was unavailable to testify at trial. As I explained in State v. Adams, 315 Or. 359, 368-69, 847 P.2d 397 (1993) (Van Hoomissen, J., concurring): "Generally, I see no reason why a criminal defendant should not be permitted to stipulate to virtually any......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT