State v. White

144                   February 22, 2024                 No. 124

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

                 STATE OF OREGON,
                  Plaintiff-Respondent,
                            v.
           CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WHITE,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
             Lincoln County Circuit Court
                18CR26741, 19CR31169;
              A178368 (Control), A178369

   Amanda R. Benjamin, Judge.
   Submitted January 22, 2024.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Sarah De La Cruz, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Powers, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Armstrong, Senior Judge.
   POWERS, P. J.
   Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2024)            145

        POWERS, P. J.
         In this consolidated criminal appeal, defendant
advances a single assignment of error, arguing that the
trial court denied him eligibility for sentence reduction programs or early release under ORS 137.750 based on reasons
that were not sufficiently exceptional to be “substantial and
compelling.” See State v. Messer, 

,

 (2022) (remanding for resentencing where the
trial court’s articulated reason for denying eligibility was
“not sufficiently exceptional to amount to a substantial
and compelling reason to deny her eligibility”). Although
defendant’s argument on appeal proceeds from the proposition that he raised that challenge before the trial court, we
agree with the state’s contention that defendant’s argument
is unpreserved. To be sure, defendant asked the trial court
to articulate the reasons for departure on the record as ORS
137.750(1) requires. He did not, however, object to the denial
of eligibility or argue that the court’s articulated reasons
for denial were not sufficiently exceptional to be “substantial and compelling.” Therefore, defendant’s argument is not
preserved for appellate review. See, e.g., State v. Wyatt, 

, 

 (2000) (outlining the preservation
requirements); State v. Walker, 

, 

 (2011) (explaining that one of the purposes of the preservation requirement is to ensure that the opposing party
and the trial court were given enough information “to be
able to understand the contention and to fairly respond to
it”). Finally, defendant has neither asked for plain-error
review, nor has he demonstrated that the trial court’s reasons for denying eligibility were plainly erroneous under
ORS 137.750.
        Affirmed.