382
Argued and submitted September 19, affirmed October 30, 2019
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CYNTHIA MARIE EDISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Baker County Circuit Court
17CR16096; A166885
Gregory L. Baxter, Judge.
Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause
for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief
Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as
300 Or App 382
(2019) 383
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of
methamphetamine and unlawful possession of hydrocodone
in March 2017. She pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine
charge, and the trial court entered a judgment on conditional discharge, deferring further proceedings and placing defendant on probation for 18 months. The judgment on
conditional discharge specified that, if defendant violated a
term or condition of her probation, the court could “enter an
adjudication of guilt” and sentence defendant for possession
of methamphetamine.
On several occasions over the next eight months,
defendant told her probation officer that she had recently
used methamphetamine. At a December 2017 hearing, the
state argued that defendant had violated the conditions of
her probation, and it asked for the conditional discharge to
be revoked. Defendant argued that her admissions to using
methamphetamine had not been corroborated, and she
asked the court not to revoke her discharge and to give her
additional time to pursue substance-abuse treatment. The
court found that defendant had violated her probation conditions. After describing defendant’s history while on probation, the court stated that, although defendant had made
“some effort” at treatment, it was not enough “to maintain
this,” and so it revoked defendant’s conditional discharge.
The court entered a judgment of conviction for possession of
methamphetamine, and defendant appeals.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court
improperly relied on her “uncorroborated confessions” to
find that she violated the conditions of her probation. She
also argues that the trial court based its revocation of her
conditional discharge on a mistaken belief that it could not
extend the duration of the discharge. Anticipating an argument by the state, defendant contends for several reasons
that we have authority to review those arguments despite
ORS 138.105(5), which states that an appellate court “has
no authority to review the validity of the defendant’s plea of
guilty … or a conviction based on the defendant’s plea of
guilty.” In response, the state makes the anticipated argument that ORS 138.105(5) makes defendant’s arguments
384 State v. Edison
unreviewable. On the merits, the state argues that the statements that defendant made to her probation officer did not
require corroboration. The state also argues that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant’s
conditional discharge and that, in doing so, the court did
not rely on a mistaken understanding of the law; moreover,
it contends, defendant’s contrary argument is unpreserved.
We need not, and do not, decide in this case whether
ORS 138.105(5) precludes appellate review of the types of
decisions or rulings that defendant challenges in this appeal.
If the decisions are not reviewable, the correct result is to
affirm. If the decisions are reviewable but defendant’s arguments fail on the merits, the correct result is still to affirm.
In this case, we assume, without deciding, that we have
authority to review defendant’s arguments, and we reject
those arguments on the merits without further discussion.
Affirmed.
