State v. Wall, 252 Or. App. 435

Defendant was convicted following conditional guilty pleas to DUII and one count of recklessly endangering another person.
Prior to trial, defendant was an inmate in Douglas County jail and appeared with a leg restraint on her right leg.
She moved to remove the restraint; trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
The court noted the restraint was not visible to the jury and relied on defendant’s 13 prior felonies, jail classification as a medium risk, and lack of prejudice to deny removal.
On appeal from a conditional guilty plea, the court must review the merit of the restraint-denial without applying harmless-error analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the trial court's denial of removal of the leg restraint error?	State argues restraint was justified by safety concerns and classification.	Brewer asserts no evidence of immediate risk or flight risk; restraint was unnecessary.	Erred; record insufficient to justify restraint.
Does the threshold for nonvisible restraints differ from visible restraints?	Millican/Bates authorize restraint depending on circumstances; invisibility reduces prejudice but not legality.	No difference in standard; same protective purposes apply regardless of visibility.	No difference; threshold applies equally to visible and nonvisible restraints.
Can the issue be reviewed for harmless error given conditional pleas?	Harmless-error analysis would defeat the right under ORS 135.335(3).	Not applicable; review must consider merits given conditional pleas.	Harmless-error analysis not applied; merits review required.
Was the record sufficiently showing immediate or serious risk of danger/disruption or escape?	Prior felonies, security risk classification, and risk of disruption justify restraint.	Record lacks particularized evidence of risk; restraint unsupported.	Record insufficient; trial court erred in denying removal.

State v. Smith, 11 Or 205 (1883) (constitutional protection against restraints and dignity of proceedings)
State ex rel Juv Dept v. Millican, 138 Or App 142 (1995) (restraint analysis under Oregon law and due process)
State v. Kessler, 57 Or App 469 (1982) (need for record-based, independent risk assessment for restraints)
State v. Glick, 73 Or App 79 (1985) (prejudice from restraints and requirement of justification)
State v. Schroeder, 62 Or App 331 (1983) (prejudice and necessity standards for trial restraints)
State v. Bates, 203 Or App 245 (2005) (difficulty of prejudice when restraints are nonvisible)
State v. Taylor, 123 Or App 343 (1993) (need for on-record finding of immediate or serious risk to justify restraint)
State v. Dinsmore, 182 Or App 505 (2002) (conditional pleas and right to appeal avoid harmless-error analysis)
State v. Mastin, 205 Or App 528 (2006) (harms analysis in conditional-plea context)
State v. Merrell, 170 Or App 400 (2000) (restraints analyzed under state and federal due process)
State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589 (1998) (restraint and due process under prior analysis; later reversed by Supreme Court)