State v. Thomas, 492 P.3d 87

Defendant Wendy Sue Thomas pleaded guilty and stipulated that, upon probation revocation, she would receive two consecutive 25‑month revocation sanctions (total 50 months).
The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed sentence after revoking probation.
On appeal, Thomas argued plain error: OAR 213‑012‑0040(2) limits imposition of consecutive revocation sanctions based on a single supervision violation when the underlying crime involved one victim.
Thomas conceded she had stipulated to the consecutive sentence at the plea hearing but asked the court to exercise discretion to correct the alleged error.
The State argued the claim is unreviewable under ORS 138.105(9) because the contested portion of the sentence resulted from a stipulated sentencing agreement; the State also invoked invited‑error principles.
The Court of Appeals held the revocation sentence unreviewable because the sentence was the specific, agreed‑upon sentence imposed by the trial court; it noted that the Oregon Supreme Court’s review in State v. Rusen could affect the ultimate disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OAR 213‑012‑0040(2) barred consecutive revocation sanctions based on a single supervision violation when the underlying crime had one victim	The State: review is barred by ORS 138.105(9) because the consecutive sanctions resulted from a stipulated sentencing agreement	Thomas: the court plainly erred under OAR 213‑012‑0040(2) and the court should correct the error despite her earlier stipulation	Held: Unreviewable under ORS 138.105(9) because the court imposed the specific, agreed sentence; appeal denied
Whether invited‑error doctrine bars relief	The State: even if reviewable, the error was invited (defendant agreed to the sentence) and provides no basis for reversal	Thomas: acknowledged stipulation but asked court to correct plain error anyway	Held: Invitation/waiver confirmed by plea colloquy; no relief (and statutory bar to review was dispositive)

State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104 (2016) (construed predecessor to ORS 138.105(9) to bar review when a specific, agreed sentence was imposed)
State v. Davis‑McCoy, 300 Or App 326 (2019) (held ORS 138.105(9) preserves limits on reviewability for stipulated sentencing agreements)
State v. Rusen, 307 Or App 759 (2020) (considered scope of ORS 138.105(9); appellate review allowed there because agreement did not specify a particular sentence), review allowed, 368 Or 168
State v. Harris, 362 Or 55 (2017) (invited‑error doctrine: a defendant’s invitation to an error forecloses reversal)