State v. Jacquez, 278 Or. App. 313

Defendant pleaded guilty to two Class A misdemeanor counts of driving while suspended under ORS 811.182(4); the suspensions arose from his refusal to submit to a breath test under ORS 813.100(3).
At a single sentencing, the trial court imposed a $1,000 fine for the first conviction and a $2,000 fine for the second, relying on ORS 811.182(5)’s minimum fines that apply when the underlying suspension “resulted from” DUII.
Defendant objected, arguing ORS 811.182(5) requires the underlying suspension to result from a DUII conviction (not a refusal), so the mandatory minimums did not apply.
The state moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under ORS 138.050(1)(a), which permits appeals after a guilty plea only when the disposition “exceeds the maximum allowable by law.”
The court held that sentencing authority derives from ORS 161.635(1)(a) (allowing fines up to $6,250 for Class A misdemeanors), so the imposed fines did not exceed the statutory maximum even if the trial court misapplied ORS 811.182(5).
Because the fines fell within the statutory maximum, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under ORS 138.050(1)(a) and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of defendant’s statutory-construction argument.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists under ORS 138.050(1)(a) to review fines imposed after guilty pleas	No—appeal jurisdiction requires sentence to exceed statutory maximum; ORS 161.635(1)(a) authorizes fines up to $6,250 so the $1,000 and $2,000 fines do not exceed the maximum	Yes—trial court exceeded its authority because it imposed fines under ORS 811.182(5) without the predicate finding that the suspension resulted from a DUII conviction	Held: No jurisdiction. Because fines fell within the statutory maximum authorized by ORS 161.635(1)(a), ORS 138.050(1)(a) does not confer jurisdiction, so appeal dismissed.
Whether ORS 811.182(5)’s minimum-fine requirement applied when the underlying suspension resulted from a refusal to submit to a breath test (merits)	Trial court: ORS 811.182(5) applies when the suspension “resulted from” DUII, not limited to convictions; therefore minimum fines applied	Defendant: ORS 811.182(5) requires a DUII conviction as the cause of suspension, so minimum fines did not apply to refusals	Not reached—court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and did not decide the statutory-construction question

State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68 (2011) (sentence “exceeds the maximum allowable by law” means exceeding a legislatively expressed maximum, not merely a sentencing error)
State v. Soto, 268 Or App 822 (2015) (appeal after guilty plea limited; sentencing errors that produce sentences within statutory maxima do not create jurisdiction under ORS 138.050(1)(a))
State v. Anderson, 113 Or App 416 (1992) (appellate jurisdiction exists where statute required procedures or findings before imposing restitution and court failed to follow them)
State v. Johnson, 269 Or App 497 (2015) (lack of recognition of statutory discretion to waive fees did not create jurisdiction where imposed fees fell within statutory maximum)
State v. Pendergrapht, 251 Or App 630 (2012) (jurisdiction where statute required a finding of ability to pay before imposing attorney fees; absence of required finding meant fees exceeded lawful maximum)