Background
Jose Vicente Gonzalez-Ramon pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. The consolidated appeal arose from judgments entered in two Marion County Circuit Court cases.
The trial court imposed several sanctions, including $384 in restitution. On appeal, Gonzalez-Ramon argued that the state had not presented evidence connecting his robbery to the damages suffered by the victim, a motel.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals held that it lacked authority to review the restitution award. Under ORS 138.105(9), the court may not review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant.
Because Gonzalez-Ramon had expressly stipulated to the $384 restitution amount imposed by the trial court, the appellate court could not consider his challenge to the sufficiency of the state’s causation evidence. The court affirmed the judgments.
Key Takeaways
- ORS 138.105(9) bars appellate review of a sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement.
- An express stipulation to a restitution amount prevents appellate review of a later challenge to that award.
- The court did not decide whether the state’s evidence adequately connected the robbery to the motel’s damages.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that agreeing to restitution as part of a stipulated sentence can foreclose appellate challenges to the award, including arguments about whether the state proved causation. Counsel should therefore resolve any evidentiary objections before expressly stipulating to restitution.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by that rule.