State v. Coventry
290 Or. App. 463
| Or. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor fourth-degree assault (ORS 163.160) and sentenced to 60 days in jail.
- The judgment included a court-ordered prohibition: no direct, indirect, or third-party contact with the victim or the victim’s family and no entry onto the victim’s premises without written court authorization.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court plainly erred because it lacked statutory authority to include the no-contact provisions in the criminal judgment.
- The State responded that defendant invited or agreed to the order, that any error was not plain, and alternatively asked for remand for resentencing to achieve the court’s protective intent.
- The appellate court reviewed prior authority holding that sentencing courts lack power to impose unauthorized no-contact orders as part of a criminal judgment and that such errors may be corrected on appeal.
- The court concluded the trial court plainly erred by including the no-contact provisions and that defendant did not invite the error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to include no-contact provisions in the criminal judgment | State: defendant invited/consented to the order; thus no error or not reviewable | Defendant: trial court lacked statutory authority; inclusion was plain error | Court: Trial court plainly erred; no-contact provisions unauthorized and must be deleted |
| Appropriate remedy/remand posture | State: remand for resentencing so court can effectuate victim protection (e.g., probation with conditions) | Defendant: reverse judgment provisions and remand only to delete no-contact terms | Court: Remand for entry of judgment omitting the no-contact provisions; no resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 282 Or. App. 9, 385 P.3d 1225 (2016) (trial court plainly erred by imposing a no-contact provision in a judgment that included incarceration)
- State v. Rubio/Galligan, 248 Or. App. 130, 273 P.3d 238 (2012) (trial court plainly erred by including unauthorized no-contact provisions in judgments)
- State v. Edwards, 103 Or. App. 410, 797 P.2d 402 (1990) (sentencing court may not impose victim-contact prohibitions beyond its statutory authority)