Background
Angela Mae Walker pleaded no contest to first-degree forgery and identity theft. After she initially failed to appear for sentencing, the state and the trial court departed from aspects of the plea agreement, and the court imposed consecutive sentences, including a 28-month prison term on the forgery count, as well as restitution.
Walker appealed, arguing that the state remained bound by the plea agreement and that the trial court should have allowed her to withdraw her plea before departing from the agreed sentencing recommendation. She also challenged the 28-month sentence and the restitution award.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Walker invited any error concerning the 28-month sentence because defense counsel recommended that sentence. Her restitution challenge was likewise invited because she told the trial court that she would not object to restitution.
The court concluded that Walker failed to preserve her arguments against consecutive sentences because she did not object on the grounds advanced on appeal. It also declined plain-error review because it was reasonably disputed whether Walker’s failure to appear released the state from the plea agreement, whether the statutory plea-agreement procedures applied, and whether the state’s recommendation breached the parties’ final agreement. Even if plain error existed, the court would not exercise its discretion to correct it because the trial court had no opportunity to consider the competing arguments and Walker could potentially develop the issue through post-conviction relief.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant generally cannot obtain reversal for a sentence that defense counsel affirmatively recommended.
- Accepting restitution without objection can invite the alleged error and foreclose appellate relief.
- Requesting concurrent sentences does not necessarily preserve legal arguments that consecutive sentences violate a plea agreement or statutory plea procedures.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of making specific, contemporaneous objections when the prosecution or sentencing court departs from an asserted plea agreement. A general request for a different sentence may not preserve arguments based on breach of the agreement or statutory withdrawal rights.
The opinion also shows that a defendant’s failure to appear for sentencing can create uncertainty about whether the state remains bound by a plea agreement. The court left open the possibility that Walker could pursue a better-developed claim through post-conviction proceedings. This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.