Background
Kelly Melissa Flick was charged with first-degree arson and stipulated that she intentionally damaged another person’s protected property. She also stipulated that she presented a danger to others requiring commitment at the Oregon State Hospital and was not a proper subject for conditional release. After Flick waived a jury trial, the circuit court found her guilty except for insanity.
At the dispositional hearing, defense counsel requested a conditional-release evaluation after Flick arrived at the hospital. The written judgment later placed her under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board and included two conditions that had not been announced in open court: a requirement to provide a blood or buccal sample and thumbprint, and a prohibition on direct, indirect, or third-party contact with the victim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals declined to consider Flick’s challenge to her placement under the board’s jurisdiction. The court concluded that she invited the alleged error by stipulating that she required hospital commitment and was not suitable for conditional release. It also concluded that the challenge was unpreserved because Flick did not object below, did not request plain-error review, and provided no basis for the appellate court to exercise such review.
The court accepted the state’s concession that the no-contact condition was improperly added to the written judgment without being pronounced while Flick was personally present. It therefore remanded for further proceedings regarding disposition and otherwise affirmed. Because of that remand, the court did not decide Flick’s separate challenge to the unannounced blood-or-buccal-sample and thumbprint requirement; she may seek a statutory exception to that requirement on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who stipulates to facts requiring commitment may invite an alleged error arising from the resulting statutory disposition.
- An appellate court may decline to review an unpreserved claim when the defendant neither requests nor supports plain-error review.
- A no-contact condition first appearing in the written judgment, without oral pronouncement in the defendant’s presence, requires further dispositional proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that conditions affecting a felony defendant’s disposition must be imposed with the defendant personally present, rather than added for the first time in the written judgment. It also illustrates how stipulations and failures to object can foreclose appellate review even when a defendant later questions the legality of the resulting disposition.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.