State v. Walsh, 373 Or. 714

James Clare Walsh IV was charged in Oregon with multiple serious offenses, including unlawful sexual penetration and sexual abuse of a child.
Walsh entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts in exchange for dismissing others and avoiding a mandatory minimum sentence.
The plea agreement stipulated that "the state may argue for and the court may impose consecutive sentences" on the two counts.
At sentencing, Walsh argued that Oregon law (ORS 137.123(5)) required specific findings before consecutive sentences could be imposed, which the court did not make. The state argued those findings were waived by the plea.
Due to ambiguity and disagreement about the meaning of "may impose," the trial court indicated it would either send the case to trial or proceed if Walsh waived the argument. Walsh withdrew his objection, and the court imposed consecutive sentences.
The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling Walsh had preserved the right to argue against consecutive sentences. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	State's Argument	Walsh's Argument	Held
Whether the plea agreement allowed the trial court to impose consecutive sentences without statutory findings	The "may impose" stipulation authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences without need for ORS 137.123(5) findings	Nothing in the plea agreement waived the statutory requirement for factual findings; defendant could still object	The agreement was ambiguous, but after the defendant withdrew objection, the trial court did not err in proceeding
Whether ambiguity in a plea agreement requires interpretation against the state	Not necessarily; circumstances at sentencing and defendant's subsequent waiver resolved any ambiguity	Ambiguous term should be construed against the state, preserving the right to make a legal challenge	Because defendant withdrew his objection and voluntarily proceeded, any error was harmless and unpreserved
Effect of trial court’s handling of the dispute (threatening to return to trial docket) on voluntariness of plea	Court acted properly to clarify ambiguity to ensure the plea was knowing and voluntary	This was coercive and rendered subsequent waiver involuntary	No preservation of voluntariness claim; not reviewable
Proper remedy if plea agreement was ambiguous and trial court erred	Affirm trial court’s sentence as ambiguity was resolved	Remand for resentencing after legal argument on consecutive sentences	Affirm trial court; no basis for resentencing

State v. Heisser, 350 Or 12 (Or. 2011) (sets contract-law framework for interpreting plea agreements, but notes limitations due to constitutional rights)
State v. King, 361 Or 646 (Or. 2017) (contract principles may not always suffice for plea agreements due to fundamental rights)
State v. McDonnell, 310 Or 98 (Or. 1990) (Oregon statutes aim for open, controlled plea negotiations)
Lyons v. Pearce, 298 Or 554 (Or. 1985) (guilty pleas must be voluntary and made with knowledge of consequences)
Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or 358 (Or. 1997) (general contract law approach to resolving ambiguity)