State v. Rusen, 479 P.3d 318

Rusen pleaded no contest to four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and received probation under a plea agreement.
Less than a year later the court found Rusen violated probation, revoked probation, and imposed four consecutive incarceration terms totaling 106 months.
At the plea/sentencing stage the parties agreed the state could argue for consecutive sentences upon revocation while Rusen could argue for concurrent sentencing.
Rusen appealed, arguing OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires concurrent incarceration when multiple probation terms are revoked for a single violation.
The State argued the sentence was part of a stipulated sentencing agreement (ORS 138.105(9)), barring appellate review, and alternatively relied on ORS 137.123(2) to support consecutive terms.
The court held Rusen’s claim was reviewable and that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms without a factual finding of multiple violations; reversed and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Rusen's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of Rusen’s challenge to consecutive revocation sentences	The parties’ agreement that the state could seek consecutive sentences meant the consecutive sentences "result[ed] from a stipulated sentencing agreement," so review is barred	The statute only bars review where a specific agreed-upon sentence was imposed; allowing argument on potential consecutive terms is not a stipulation to a specific sentence	Court: Reviewable — the agreement allowed argument but did not stipulate a specific sentence, so ORS 138.105(9) does not bar review
Whether OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) permits consecutive incarceration when multiple probation terms are revoked for a single supervision violation	Alternatively argued record could support multiple violations and ORS 137.123(2) allows consecutive terms	OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires concurrent incarceration when multiple terms are revoked for a single violation; Rusen contends no separate violation findings were made	Court: Error to impose consecutive terms without finding multiple violations; OAR controls and ORS 137.123(2) does not override per precedent; reversed and remanded for factfinding

State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or App 326 (2019) (explains preservation of limits on review of sentences resulting from stipulations)
State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104 (2016) (construing predecessor statute: review barred only where a specific agreed sentence was imposed)
State v. Lewis, 257 Or App 641 (2013) (interpreting OAR 213-012-0040(2): if multiple probation terms are revoked for a single violation, incarceration sanctions must run concurrently)
State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355 (1995) (rejects argument that ORS 137.123(2) authorizes consecutive revocation sentences contrary to administrative rule)