State v. Slight, 456 P.3d 366

Defendant was indicted on multiple sexual offenses against his nine‑year‑old daughter and later on charges for encouraging child sexual abuse based on evidence from his laptop.
Defendant entered conditional guilty/no‑contest pleas reserving appellate review of specified pretrial rulings, including denial of pretrial release, per ORS 135.335(3).
At a release hearing the trial court ordered defendant held without bail; the prosecutor narrated case facts at the hearing and the victim’s mother submitted a written statement read into the record.
On appeal the parties disputed (1) whether the pretrial‑detention challenge was moot given subsequent convictions and (2) whether the evidence sufficed to deny release under ORS 135.240.
The Court of Appeals held the release issue was not moot (a successful appeal could allow plea withdrawal), construed Oregon release statutes (distinguishing form‑of‑release criteria from grounds to deny release), ruled that counsel’s factual assertions are not evidence, and nonetheless affirmed denial of release based on other evidence (victim’s mother’s statement and defendant’s criminal history).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Is the pretrial‑detention challenge moot after conviction?	State: moot because defendant is no longer confined.	Slight: not moot because prevailing on appeal would allow plea withdrawal.	Not moot — conditional‑plea withdrawal remedy makes the issue justiciable.
2. Which statutory provisions govern denial of release?	State: primary/secondary release criteria (ORS 135.230) justify denial; alternatively ORS 135.240 supports denial.	Slight: trial court erred if it relied on release criteria instead of ORS 135.240 or lacked sufficient evidence.	ORS 135.230 governs form of release; ORS 135.240 governs when release (for violent felonies) may be denied by clear and convincing evidence of danger.
3. May prosecutor statements be treated as evidence at a release hearing?	State: prosecutor’s factual account may inform risk assessment.	Slight: prosecutor’s assertions are not evidence and cannot satisfy burden.	Statements by counsel are not evidence and cannot be considered.
4. Was there sufficient evidence to deny release?	State: victim’s mother’s statement plus defendant’s history and abuse allegations show clear and convincing danger.	Slight: facts are allegations; risk not proved by clear and convincing evidence.	Yes — even excluding prosecutor’s assertions, the victim’s mother’s written statement and defendant’s criminal history supplied clear and convincing evidence of danger.

Haynes v. Burks, 290 Or. 75 (1980) (standard of review for legal questions about pretrial release requirements)
City of Lake Oswego v. Albright, 222 Or. App. 117 (2008) (requirement that conditional pleas specify reserved pretrial motions)
State v. McAnulty, 356 Or. 432 (2014) (explanation of conditional pleas and right to withdraw if successful on appeal)
State v. Dinsmore, 182 Or. App. 505 (2002) (conditional plea withdrawal framework)
State v. Ordonez‑Villanueva, 138 Or. App. 236 (1995) (attorney assertions are not evidence)
State v. Green, 140 Or. App. 308 (1996) (reiterating that counsel argument is not evidence)