State v. Berger, 392 P.3d 792

Defendant pleaded guilty/no contest to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 38 months.
At sentencing, the trial court invoked ORS 137.750(1) and ordered that defendant not be considered for any "reduction in sentence" or other programs, citing substantial and compelling reasons (breach of public trust).
Defendant argued that ORS 137.750(1) does not authorize a sentencing court to deny eligibility for a "reduction in sentence," and that only the Department of Corrections (under ORS 421.121) can grant or deny earned-time reductions.
The State argued the statute’s phrasing (including the word "such") and punctuation show the "unless" clause applies to all listed antecedents, including "reduction in sentence."
The trial court rejected defendant’s statutory-interpretation claim; defendant appealed on that narrow legal issue only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 137.750(1) allows a sentencing court to deny eligibility for a "reduction in sentence" (earned-time)	Statute’s "such leave, release or program" in the unless-clause recapitulates all antecedents, so the court can deny eligibility for reductions	The "unless" clause does not mention "reduction in sentence," so the sentencing court lacks authority to deny reduction eligibility; only DOC under ORS 421.121 controls earned-time	The court held the sentencing court may deny eligibility for earned-time reductions under ORS 137.750(1); affirmed

State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68 (court interprets ORS 137.750 context and predecessors)
State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248 (statutory interpretation by trial court reviewed for legal error)
State v. Gonzalez-Valenzuela, 358 Or 451 (use grammar and structure to determine plain meaning)
State v. Webb, 324 Or 380 (doctrine of last antecedent applies in statutory construction)
State v. Clark, 205 Or App 338 (ORS 137.750’s benefits are not entitlements; earned-time is among programs covered)