Background
Stephen John Dyal was charged in Clackamas County with multiple offenses. He entered a guilty plea to strangulation constituting domestic violence (ORS 163.187) and tampering with a witness (ORS 162.285), in exchange for the state’s dismissal of five remaining counts in the indictment. The plea agreement included a probationary sentence and, as part of a “Domestic Violence Package,” a set of specific probation conditions. The trial court confirmed defendant’s agreement to those conditions and imposed sentence in accordance with the negotiated resolution.
On appeal, Dyal challenged two probation conditions from that package. The first required him to submit to searches of his telephone records whenever “deemed necessary by the probation officer.” The second authorized warrantless searches of his person, residence, vehicle, or property—including computers and cell phones—whenever the probation officer had reasonable grounds to believe a search would reveal evidence of a probation violation.
Dyal conceded he had not preserved either objection at the trial level but argued both conditions were plainly erroneous because they exceeded the scope of probation conditions permitted by the legislature. The state countered that the challenges were unreviewable under ORS 138.105(9) because the conditions arose from a stipulated sentencing agreement, and alternatively that defendant had invited any error and that the court should decline to exercise plain-error review.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction in a per curiam opinion, agreeing with the state that the challenges were unreviewable. The court held that because the disputed probation conditions were part of a stipulated sentencing agreement between Dyal and the state, ORS 138.105(9) stripped the appellate court of authority to review them. That statute provides that the court “has no authority to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant.”
The court found that every element of Dyal’s sentence—including the challenged conditions—flowed from the negotiated plea agreement. The written agreement expressly incorporated the Domestic Violence Package, both parties asked the trial court to follow the recommendation, and the trial court confirmed the defendant’s agreement before imposing sentence accordingly. Under those facts, the conditions plainly resulted from a stipulated sentencing agreement within the meaning of ORS 138.105(9), citing State v. Rusen, 369 Or 677 (2022), for the proposition that there is “no role for judicial review” of an agreed-upon part of a sentence.
Dyal’s argument that his agreement did not qualify as the type of stipulation covered by ORS 138.105(9) was rejected as foreclosed by State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or App 326 (2019). The court did not reach the state’s alternative arguments regarding invited error or discretionary plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of any part of a sentence—including individual probation conditions—that results from a stipulated sentencing agreement, even where the defendant claims the conditions exceed statutory authority.
- A written plea agreement incorporating a standard probation package (here, a “Domestic Violence Package”) constitutes a stipulated sentencing agreement under ORS 138.105(9), and the defendant cannot later challenge those conditions on appeal.
- State v. Davis-McCoy (300 Or App 326) forecloses arguments that a comprehensive plea deal falls outside the scope of ORS 138.105(9)’s bar on reviewing stipulated sentences.
- This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as provided in that rule.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a significant limitation on criminal defendants’ ability to challenge probation conditions on appeal when those conditions were part of a negotiated plea agreement. Defense counsel must scrutinize every element of a proposed sentence—including packaged probation condition lists—before a plea is entered, because ORS 138.105(9) will likely foreclose later appellate review of anything the parties agreed to, regardless of whether the condition might otherwise be legally vulnerable.
For practitioners handling domestic violence cases in Oregon, the ruling highlights the practical consequence of accepting bundled condition packages (like a standard “Domestic Violence Package”) as part of a plea deal: agreeing to the package in writing and asking the court to follow the negotiated resolution will ordinarily render each condition within that package unreviewable, even on plain-error grounds.