Background
Leonard Jacob Boyd pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a weapon in one case and aggravated harassment in another. Each plea agreement provided for three years of supervised probation as a downward-departure sentence and stipulated to a prison term if probation was revoked: 18 months for the weapons conviction and 60 months for aggravated harassment.
The state later alleged that Boyd failed to report to his supervising officer and possessed weapons, firearms, and/or dangerous animals in violation of his probation conditions. Boyd admitted the violations at the show-cause hearing. The trial court revoked probation and imposed concurrent prison terms of 60 months and 18 months, followed by two years of post-prison supervision.
The Court’s Holding
Appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief under ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour without a Section B identifying any claims raised by Boyd. After reviewing the trial court record, hearing transcripts, and counsel’s brief, the Court of Appeals found no arguably meritorious issue.
The court also noted that its authority to review was statutorily limited because Boyd had stipulated to the sentences that would apply upon probation revocation. It therefore affirmed the orders revoking probation and the resulting sentences.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulated probation-revocation sentence may be outside the Oregon Court of Appeals’ review authority under ORS 138.105(9).
- Boyd’s admissions to the alleged probation violations supported revocation in both consolidated cases.
- The court’s independent review under the Balfour procedure revealed no arguably meritorious appellate issue.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the appellate consequences of agreeing in advance to a specific prison term if probation is later revoked. When the revocation sentence matches that stipulation, Oregon law may preclude appellate review of the sentence.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.