State v. Merrill, 311 Or. App. 487

Defendant Julie Merrill pleaded no contest to driving under the influence (ORS 813.010(4)) and entered a statutory diversion agreement (ORS 813.200–813.270).
The trial court found Merrill failed to satisfy diversion terms, terminated diversion, and entered judgment of conviction under ORS 813.255.
Merrill appealed, arguing the court erred in terminating diversion and entering judgment on her plea and also challenged a $490 "state obligation" that was imposed outside her presence.
The Court of Appeals analyzed whether it had authority to review a conviction based on a guilty/no-contest plea under ORS 138.105(5).
The court concluded ORS 138.105(5) precludes appellate review of the validity of plea-based convictions except for two enumerated exceptions (not applicable here), so it affirmed the conviction.
The court held the financial-obligation claim was reviewable, the state conceded error, and the $490 "state obligation" was vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court may review and reverse a conviction entered after termination of diversion when conviction rests on a no-contest plea	ORS 138.105(5) bars review of the validity of a plea-based conviction; no applicable exceptions	The statutory bar should be read narrowly (only barring factual sufficiency challenges); legislative history and constitutional principles require review	Affirmed conviction — ORS 138.105(5) precludes review of the claim; exceptions do not apply
Whether the $490 "state obligation" was properly imposed outside defendant's presence	State conceded the fee was imposed in error	Fee was imposed outside defendant's presence and is invalid	Vacated portion imposing $490; remanded for resentencing

Tarr v. Multnomah County, 306 Or App 26 (court should ascertain legislative intent from text and context)
Chase & Chase, 354 Or 776 (text, context, and legislative history guide statutory interpretation)
Oregon Trucking Assns. v. Dept. of Transportation, 364 Or 210 (statutory text is primary indicator of legislative intent)
State v. Landahl, 254 Or App 46 (plea-based convictions not reviewable on appeal under prior statute)
State v. Shubert, 310 Or App 378 (appellate bar on plea-based challenges enforced)
State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or App 326 (context on 2017 overhaul adopting ORS 138.105)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (legislative history cannot overcome clear statutory text)
Waybrant v. Bernstein, 294 Or 650 (the right to appeal is statutory)
State v. Endsley, 214 Or 537 (legislature defines scope of appeals)
State v. Jacobs, 200 Or App 665 (fee-imposed-outside-presence error)
State v. Clark, 291 Or 231 (equal protection/privileges arguments distinguish citizen vs. state)