State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or. App. 326

Defendant Davis‑McCoy had probation revoked on two felony counts and, per a plea agreement, agreed that revocation would trigger 28‑month prison terms (consecutive) plus two years post‑prison supervision on each count.
At revocation, the trial court imposed the stipulated consecutive 28‑month sentences.
Davis‑McCoy appealed, arguing those prison terms were unlawful because they exceed the presumptive maximum revocation sentence under the sentencing guidelines.
The State argued the claim is not reviewable because the sentences resulted from a stipulated sentencing agreement and ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of stipulated sentences.
The court relied on its prior decision in State v. Silsby and the legislative history of ORS 138.105(9), concluding the 2017 statute restated the former review bar and therefore precludes review of stipulated sentences.
The court affirmed the revocation judgment and the stipulated sentences.

Issue	State's Argument	Davis‑McCoy's Argument	Held
May an appellate court review a sentence agreed to in a stipulation when the agreed sentence exceeds the guidelines' presumptive term?	Stipulation bars review under ORS 138.105(9).	Stipulated 28‑month terms are unlawful because they exceed the guideline presumptive maximum.	Not reviewable; defendant's challenge to the stipulated revocation sentence is barred and the judgment is affirmed.

State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104 (2016) (held that a stipulated revocation sentence is not reviewable under predecessor statute)
State v. Kephart, 320 Or 433 (1994) (discussed scope of what counts as a "stipulated sentence")
State v. Capri, 248 Or App 391 (2012) (explains that only non‑stipulated portions of a sentence are reviewable)
State v. Davis, 134 Or App 310 (1995) (same principle that only non‑stipulated sentence parts are reviewable)