State v. Herrera, 383 P.3d 301

Background

Defendant pleaded guilty (Sept 2010) to possession of methamphetamine and was placed on a judgment of conditional discharge under ORS 475.245 with an 18‑month probationary term ending April 18, 2012.
The conditional discharge provided that a conviction would be entered if the defendant was unsuccessfully terminated from drug court; successful completion would lead to dismissal.
Defendant incurred probation violations during 2011; the court imposed short jail sanctions but did not extend probation or enter an adjudication of guilt before the probation term expired.
After the probation term expired, the court continued to impose sanctions for post‑expiration noncompliance and on September 11, 2012 terminated the conditional discharge, entered a judgment of conviction, and sentenced the defendant; defense did not object on the ground later raised on appeal.
On appeal defendant argued (relying on State v. Granberry) that because the state did not initiate revocation proceedings before the probationary period expired, the court lacked authority to enter the conviction; the State argued ORS 138.050 bars appellate review of challenges to convictions after a guilty plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ORS 138.050 bar appellate review of defendant’s challenge to the entry of conviction after a guilty plea?	ORS 138.050 precludes appeals attacking convictions entered after guilty pleas; defendant’s sole attack on the conviction is therefore barred.	Granberry requires dismissal because revocation proceedings must be initiated before probation expiry; conviction entry was unauthorized.	Held: ORS 138.050 controls; appeal dismissed.
Does ORS 138.053(3) ("notwithstanding ORS 138.050") permit review here because the judgment revoked probation?	ORS 138.053(3) does not expand review to collateral challenges to the conviction; review is limited to the order that revoked probation.	ORS 138.053(3) authorizes review of proceedings that revoked probation, which should include challenge to entering conviction.	Held: ORS 138.053(3) does not confer jurisdiction to review the entry of the conviction; it limits review to the revocation order itself.
Is Granberry’s substantive rule (state must initiate revocation before probation expiry) applicable to invalidate this conviction?	State did not dispute Granberry’s substance but invoked jurisdictional bar instead of contesting applicability.	Granberry controls: without timely revocation or extension, court lacked authority to enter conviction.	Held: Court assumed Granberry’s substantive rule but refused to reach it because appeal was jurisdictionally barred.
Does the post‑2001 ‘‘colorable claim of error’’ language in ORS 138.053(3) broaden review?	It was intended to limit non‑meritorious appeals, not to broaden review beyond the listed dispositions.	That language permits review of predicate proceedings and the resulting conviction when appealing a revocation.	Held: The 2001 amendment constrains review; it does not expand ORS 138.053(3) to encompass challenges to convictions.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Granberry, 260 Or. App. 15 (court held revocation proceedings must be initiated during conditional‑discharge probation or conviction cannot later be entered)
State v. Miller, 224 Or. App. 642 (probation‑extension and timing principles in ORS chapter 137 apply)
State v. Vanlieu, 251 Or. App. 361 (probation cannot be revoked based solely on post‑expiration conduct)
State v. Balukovic, 153 Or. App. 253 (orders occurring before judgment of conviction are not reviewable under ORS 138.053(1)(e))
State v. Landahl, 254 Or. App. 46 (appeals from guilty pleas cannot challenge the entry of conviction under ORS 138.050)
State v. Davis, 265 Or. App. 425 (dismissal of appeals that solely attack convictions entered after guilty pleas)
State v. Clements, 265 Or. App. 9 (ORS 138.050 bars challenges to convictions post guilty‑plea)