State v. Redick
312 Or. App. 260
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Redick pleaded guilty to DUII and entered pretrial diversion under ORS 813.200–813.270.
- He later admitted violating the diversion agreement.
- The trial court terminated diversion and entered an amended judgment of conviction under ORS 813.255.
- Redick appealed, arguing the court erred in terminating diversion and entering judgment based on his guilty plea.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding ORS 138.105(5) bars most appellate review of guilty or no-contest pleas and rejecting Redick’s due process challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in terminating diversion and entering judgment. | State: Termination and entry of judgment were lawful under diversion statute. | Redick: Termination was erroneous and conviction should be reversed. | Affirmed; appellate review of plea-based claim barred by statute. |
| Whether ORS 138.105(5) precludes appellate review of claims attacking a conviction based on a guilty plea. | State: ORS 138.105(5) bars such appellate review except narrow exceptions. | Redick: Statute should not preclude review of diversion-termination errors. | Held that ORS 138.105(5) precludes the asserted appellate review. |
| Whether ORS 138.105(5) violates due process by limiting appellate review. | State: Limitation is permissible; due process does not guarantee appeals. | Redick: The limited scope of review denies due process. | Rejected; statute’s limited appellate scope does not violate Fourteenth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Merrill, 311 Or App 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (construing and applying ORS 138.105(5) to bar appellate review of plea-based challenges)
- Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994) (distinguished; involved complete denial of judicial review of punitive damages)
- Class v. United States, 583 U.S. _ (2018) (explained guilty pleas can waive certain challenges though some constitutional claims may be preserved)