State v. Capri
248 Or. App. 391
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant pled guilty to two counts of felony stalking under a plea bargain.
- Sentences: 41 months in DOC on each count plus 3 years PPS, with 28 months of Count 10 concurrent with Count 7 and 13 months consecutive, totaling 54 months for Count 10.
- Defendant argued the combined prison and PPS exceeded the five-year statutory maximum for a Class C felony under OAR 213-005-0002(4) and ORS 161.605.
- State argued the sentence was not reviewable under ORS 138.222(2)(d) because it arose from a stipulated sentencing agreement.
- Court acknowledged unlawful total sentence under the statute and reviewed whether the PPS term was part of the stipulation; this portion was not agreed to.
- Court remanded for resentencing, exercising plain-error review to correct the unlawful sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the total sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. | State: sentence under stipulation controls; review barred. | Capri: PPS term not part of stipulation; reviewable for legal error. | Yes; total sentence exceeds maximum; plain-error review available; remand for resentencing. |
| Whether ORS 138.222(2)(d) barred review of the post-prison supervision term. | State: cannot review any sentence from a stipulated agreement. | Capri: PPS term not part of stipulation; reviewable under ORS 138.222(4)(a). | The PPS term was not part of the stipulation; review allowed for that portion. |
| Whether the court erred in applying plain-error review to the sentencing issue. | State concedes error but urges no correction under discretion rules. | Capri: error is plain; should be corrected on remand. | Plain error established; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 134 Or.App. 310 (1995) (limits of ORS 138.222(2)(d) review when only part of sentence is stipulated)
- State v. Kephart, 320 Or. 433 (1994) (interpretation of ORS 138.222(2)(d))
- State v. Ivie, 213 Or.App. 198 (2007) (partial review of non-stipulated sentence components)
- State v. Medina, 234 Or.App. 684 (2010) (factors for exercising discretion to correct sentencing errors)
- State v. Fults, 343 Or. 515 (2007) (sentencing-error remedies and discretion)
- State v. Wierson, 216 Or.App. 318 (2007) (preservation and correction of sentencing errors)
- State v. Quintero-Martinez, 220 Or.App. 497 (2008) (remand when lawful alternative sentence possible)
- State v. Jenniches, 187 Or.App. 658 (2003) (remand when sentencing may yield a different lawful result)