Background
Jaden Alan Chauvin pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual abuse under a plea agreement and was initially sentenced to probation. As part of the agreement, he stipulated that, if his probation were revoked, he would serve 60 months in prison followed by the balance of five years of post-prison supervision.
After revoking Chauvin’s probation, the trial court imposed 60 months in prison and described the post-prison-supervision term as lasting until the combined imprisonment and supervision equaled the 60-month maximum statutory indeterminate sentence, up to 36 months. Chauvin argued on appeal that the court plainly erred by imposing an indeterminate post-prison-supervision term. The state responded that the claim was unreviewable and lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that Chauvin’s sentencing claim was unreviewable under ORS 138.105(9), which bars appellate review of any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant.
Because Chauvin had stipulated to the revocation sentence when he pleaded guilty, the court declined to review his challenge. It therefore did not address whether the post-prison-supervision term was erroneous on the merits and affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 138.105(9) barred review because the challenged revocation sentence resulted from a stipulated sentencing agreement.
- The bar applied even though Chauvin characterized the alleged sentencing defect as plain error.
- The court expressed no view on whether the post-prison-supervision term was legally erroneous.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a defendant’s sentencing stipulation can foreclose appellate review of the resulting sentence, including a sentence imposed after probation revocation. A claimed sentencing error does not reach the merits when the statutory review bar applies.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.