State v. Redick

Citation491 P.3d 87,312 Or.App. 260
Decision Date09 June 2021
Docket NumberA169539
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
Parties STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gabriel Wayne REDICK, Defendant-Appellant.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from an amended judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, arguing that the trial court erroneously terminated diversion and entered judgment pursuant to his guilty plea.1 Defendant pleaded guilty to DUII and entered diversion, as described by ORS 813.200 to 813.270. He later admitted violating the terms of the diversion agreement, and the trial court terminated diversion and entered an amended judgment of conviction in accordance with ORS 813.255. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in terminating diversion and in entering a judgment based on his plea. We affirm.

As an initial matter, for the reasons stated in State v. Merrill , 311 Or. App. 487, ––– P.3d –––– (2021), we reject the bulk of defendant's arguments and conclude that ORS 138.105(5) bars appellate review. Defendant also argues that, if ORS 138.105(5) precludes appellate review, it violates his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree. In acknowledging that due process does not require criminal appeals, defendant appears to argue that the limited scope of review in ORS 138.105(5) violates due process. None of the cases defendant relies upon, however, hold that a state statute limiting the scope of a criminal appeal for a defendant that pleaded guilty or no contest violates due process.

For instance, Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Oberg , 512 U.S. 415, 114 S. Ct. 2331, 129 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1994), which involved a state constitutional provision that completely deprived a party subject to punitive damages any judicial review of that award, is readily distinguishable. ORS 138.105(5) does not completely bar judicial review; rather, it limits solely appellate review of the validity of a defendant's plea of guilty or no contest, and any resulting convictions, with two exceptions. See ORS 138.105(5)(a), (b) (allowing review of pretrial motions after a conditional plea and allowing review of merger determinations). It does not bar trial court review in the first instance. Defendant's reliance on Class v. United States , 583 U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 798, 200 L. Ed. 2d 37 (2018), is similarly unavailing. Although Class holds that a defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the statute of conviction, 138 S. Ct. at 807, the Court also explained that a valid plea waives certain challenges arising from that plea. Id. at 805-07. Importantly, the Court distinguished the government's reliance on a federal rule of criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • State v. Hester, A171196
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • December 15, 2021
    ...with some exceptions, bars appellate review of challenges that seek to invalidate convictions based on guilty pleas); State v. Redick, 312 Or.App. 260, 491 P.3d 87 (2021) (following Merrill and rejecting the defendant's due process arguments). Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. ...
  • State v. Upchurch
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • May 11, 2022
    ..., 311 Or. App. 487, 492 P.3d 722, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 314 Or. App. 460, 495 P.3d 219 (2021) ; and State v. Redick , 312 Or. App. 260, 491 P.3d 87 (2021). ...
  • State v. Upchurch
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • May 11, 2022
    ...... Hellman, Judge. . . .           PER. CURIAM. . .          Affirmed. State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or.App. 326, 454 P.3d 48. (2019); State v. Merrill, 311 Or.App. 487, 492 P.3d. 722, adh'd to as modified on recons, 314 Or.App. 460, 495 P.3d 219 (2021); and State v. Redick......
  • State v. Cordero
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • October 13, 2021
    ...... to invalidate convictions based on pleas of guilty or no. contest, except in limited circumstances not present in this. case. See ORS 138.105(5)(a), (b) (allowing review of. pretrial motions after a conditional plea and allowing review. of merger determinations); see also State v. Redick,. 312 Or.App. 260, 491 P.3d 87 (2021) (following. Merrill and rejecting the defendant's due. process arguments). Accordingly, because the legislature has. precluded appellate review of defendant's challenges in. his second assignment of error, we affirm defendant's. conviction in Case No. ......
  • 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