759
Argued and submitted January 16, reversed and remanded December 9, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JONATHAN WILLIAM RUSEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Linn County Circuit Court
17CR12207; A168201
479 P3d 318
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to four counts
of second-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to probation. Defendant later
violated his probation, and the trial court sentenced defendant to four consecutive terms of incarceration. On appeal, defendant contends that OAR 213-012-
0040(2) requires concurrent probation-revocation terms where, as here, multiple
terms of probation are revoked for a single violation. The state responds that
ORS 138.105(9) precludes appellate review of defendant’s sentence because it was
the product of a stipulated sentencing agreement. Held: The trial court erred in
imposing consecutive terms of incarceration. Defendant’s agreement allowed the
state to seek consecutive sentences, but it did not specifically agree to consecutive
sentences as required for ORS 138.105(9) to preclude appellate review. Because
multiple terms of defendant’s probation were revoked based on a single violation,
OAR 213-012-0040(2) required concurrent probation-revocation terms.
Reversed and remanded.
Thomas McHill, Judge.
Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, argued
the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G.
Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office
of Public Defense Services.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Sercombe, Senior Judge.
LAGESEN, P. J.
Reversed and remanded.
760 State v. Rusen
LAGESEN, P. J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded
no contest to four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and
was sentenced to probation. Less than a year later, the trial
court found defendant in violation of his probation, revoked
his probation, and sentenced defendant to a term of incarceration on each count, sentences to be served consecutively, for
a total of 106 months’ incarceration. On appeal, defendant
contends that OAR 213-012-0040(2) requires concurrent
probation-revocation terms where, as here, multiple terms
of probation are revoked for a single violation, and that the
trial court therefore erred in imposing consecutive terms
of incarceration. The state responds that ORS 138.105(9)
precludes appellate review of defendant’s claim of error
because, in its view, defendant’s sentence was the product of
a “stipulated sentencing agreement” within the meaning of
that statute. Alternatively, the state argues that we should
affirm on the merits. We conclude that defendant’s claim of
error is reviewable and that the trial court erred under OAR
213-012-0040(2)(a) and applicable case law. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand.
Reviewability. We start with the issue of whether
ORS 138.105(9) precludes review of defendant’s claim of
sentencing error. That statute, enacted as part of the legislature’s 2017 overhaul of the provisions governing criminal
appeals, provides that “[t]he appellate court has no authority
to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated
sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant.”
ORS 138.105(9). As we explained in State v. Davis-McCoy,
300 Or App 326,
454 P3d 48 (2019), that statute preserved
existing limitations on the reviewability of challenges to
sentences (or parts of sentences) that resulted from stipulations between a defendant and the state.
Id. at 328-30. And,
as we explained in State v. Silsby,
282 Or App 104,
386 P3d
172 (2016), rev den,
360 Or 752 (2017), construing the statutory predecessor to ORS 138.105(9), the limits on reviewability applied when a “[sentence] was imposed pursuant to
agreement [between the defendant and the state], it [was] a
specific sentence, and the trial court imposed that agreedupon specific sentence.” Id. at 113; see also Davis-McCoy,
300
Or App at 329.
Cite as
307 Or App 759 (2020) 761
Here, the state points out that, at sentencing, defendant agreed that, if his probation were revoked, there would
be the potential for consecutive sentences: The parties
agreed that, upon revocation, the state could argue for consecutive sentences and defendant could argue for concurrent
ones. According to the state, this means that defendant’s
consecutive sentences “result[ed] from a stipulated sentencing agreement” for purposes of ORS 138.105(9), because
defendant agreed to the potential of such sentences. But, as
explained, to qualify as the sort of stipulated sentence for
which ORS 138.105(9) bars review, the agreed-to sentence
must be a “specific” one. An agreement that the parties can
argue for different sentences is not an agreement to a specific sentence. Defendant’s claim of error is reviewable.
Merits. On the merits, defendant argues that the
trial court’s imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration
was erroneous under OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a). That argument presents a question of law, which we review for legal
error. State v. Stokes, 133 Or App 355, 357-58,
891 P2d 13
(1995).
OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) states that, “[i]f more than
one term of probationary supervision is revoked for a single supervision violation, the sentencing judge shall impose
the incarceration sanctions concurrently.” As we explained
in State v. Lewis, 257 Or App 641,
307 P3d 560 (2013), that
means that,
“if an offender is serving multiple terms of probationary
supervision and the offender commits a single probation
violation, the sentencing judge may impose revocation
sanctions for the violation of each separate term of probationary supervision. However, if the judge revokes more
than one term of probationary supervision for a single violation, the judge must impose the incarceration sanctions
concurrently.”
Id. at 644; see also Stokes,
133 Or App at 359.
Here, relying on its understanding that defendant
had agreed that he would be eligible for consecutive terms
of incarceration upon revocation, the trial court imposed
consecutive terms of incarceration without finding that
defendant committed more than one violation of the terms
762 State v. Rusen
of supervision. Absent that finding, OAR 213-012-0040(2)
barred the court from imposing consecutive terms of incarceration, and the court erred by doing so. See Lewis, 257 Or
App at 645 (rejecting the state’s contention that the defendant’s agreement in the plea agreement to a provision that
the state would seek consecutive terms of incarceration
upon revocation of probation precluded the application of
OAR 213-012-0040(2)).
The state asserts that we should affirm nevertheless.
It argues that the record would support a finding that defendant committed more than one violation of the conditions
of probation and also that the court retained the authority
under ORS 137.123(2) to impose consecutive terms of incarceration notwithstanding OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a). The latter argument, as the state acknowledges, is foreclosed by
our decisions in Stokes, and we are not persuaded by the
state’s contention that Stokes was wrongly decided. As for
whether the trial court could have found on this record that
defendant committed more than one violation of the terms
of probation so as to allow for the imposition of consecutive
terms of incarceration under OAR 213-012-0040(2)(b), that
is a question for the trial court, sitting as factfinder, in the
first instance. We reverse and remand for that reason.
Reversed and remanded.
