Background
In this consolidated criminal appeal, Michael Edwin Glover pleaded guilty to a new crime in Case No. 24CR40543. Based on that conviction, the Clatsop County Circuit Court revoked his probation in four other cases and sentenced him at a hearing conducted by video.
Glover raised three issues on appeal. He challenged the remote proceeding because the record did not show that he had agreed to appear electronically. He also challenged a 31-month prison term plus 36 months of post-prison supervision in Case No. 23CR19556 and a requirement in the judgment for Case No. 24CR40543 that he pay any required per diem fees, which the court had not announced at sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals rejected the remote-appearance claim. Because Glover did not object below, the claim was reviewable only for plain error. The record was entirely silent on whether he had agreed to appear by video, so the alleged error was not apparent on the record and therefore was not plain.
The court accepted the state’s concessions on the two sentencing issues. In Case No. 23CR19556, the combined 67 months of incarceration and post-prison supervision exceeded the 60-month statutory maximum for Glover’s Class C felony conviction. In Case No. 24CR40543, adding unannounced per diem fees to the written judgment was error. The court remanded both cases for resentencing and otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A silent record did not establish plain error regarding whether Glover consented to appear remotely.
- A prison term and post-prison supervision may not combine to exceed the applicable statutory maximum.
- A sentencing judgment may not include per diem fees that the court did not announce at sentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the record-based limits of plain-error review: even when a statute requires party agreement for a remote criminal appearance, an appellate court cannot find plain error if determining whether the defendant agreed would require an inference beyond the record.
It also reinforces two sentencing rules—combined incarceration and post-prison supervision must remain within the statutory maximum, and financial obligations included in a written judgment must have been announced at sentencing. The memorandum opinion is nonprecedential under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.