State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221

Neill pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful use of a weapon with a firearm (Counts 2 and 8) plus two other charges; other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
The plea stipulated to downward-departure sentences: 36 months’ probation on each UUW/F count, and an express stipulation that if probation were revoked the court would impose consecutive 5-year firearm-minimum terms (60 months each) under ORS 161.610(4).
The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the stipulated probation terms.
After Neill violated probation, the court revoked probation and imposed the agreed consecutive 60‑month sentences, producing a total suspended DOC time of 120 months.
Neill appealed, arguing the revocation sentences exceeded OAR 213-010-0002(2) maximums and that the trial court plainly erred; the State conceded the merits but argued ORS 138.105(9) barred appellate review.
The court held ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of the stipulated probation-revocation sentence and rejected Neill’s constitutional challenges (relying on Colgrove).

Issue	State's Argument	Neill's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of a probation‑revocation sentence that the parties stipulated in a plea agreement	ORS 138.105(9) prevents review because Neill agreed to the specific revocation sentence	Stipulations to future revocation sanctions are not the kind of stipulated sentencing agreements described in ORS 135.407, so ORS 138.105(9) should not bar review	Held: ORS 138.105(9) bars review here—Neill expressly agreed to the precise consecutive 60‑month terms, so the court cannot review that part of the sentence
Whether ORS 138.105(9) (as applied) violates state or federal constitutional protections	State: constitutional arguments are precluded/without merit under existing precedent	Neill: statute violates Article VII (Amended) sections 1 and 3 and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment	Held: constitutional challenges foreclosed by State v. Colgrove and do not show a due process violation; rejected

State v. Rusen, 369 Or 677 (Sup. Ct. 2022) (held ORS 138.105(9) does not bar review when parties reserve the right to contest sentencing parameters; distinguishes agreements that produce a specific agreed sentence)
State v. Davis‑McCoy, 300 Or App 326 (Or. Ct. App. 2019) (held ORS 138.105(9) barred review of a stipulated probation‑revocation sentence)
State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2016) (explained review is barred when parties agreed to a specific sentence imposed by the court)
State v. Thomas, 312 Or App 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (applied same principle to bar review of stipulated sentencing components)
State v. Kephart, 320 Or 433 (Or. 1994) (discussion of ORS 135.407’s role in defining stipulated sentencing agreements)
State v. Colgrove, 370 Or 474 (Or. 2022) (addressed and foreclosed constitutional challenges to statutory limitations on appellate review of stipulated sentences)