State v. Gray

No. 20              January 2, 2025                  317

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              DANIEL REGINALD GRAY,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
              Douglas County Circuit Court
                 20CR62593; A181764

  George William Ambrosini, Judge.
  Submitted November 25, 2024.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the briefs for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Mooney, Senior Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
318                                               State v. Gray

        HELLMAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment that revoked his probation. In two assignments of error, defendant argues that
the trial court erred when it imposed a post-prison supervision (PPS) term in the judgment that differed from the term
that it had announced at the probation violation hearing.
We affirm.
         “We review sentencing decisions for legal error.”
State v. Tison, 

, 

, rev den,

 (2018).
       Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of
unlawful use of a weapon, ORS 166.220. Defendant’s plea
agreement provided:
   “In exchange for my plea, the District Attorney has agreed
   to stipulate to a Grid Block 6-D DOC; Downward departure to 30 days incarceration with 3 years probation, mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations with
   the regular terms of probation. If probation is revoked the
   sentence would be 12 months and a day.”
After a probation revocation hearing, the court announced
that it was revoking defendant’s probation, that it would
sentence him to prison, and that “it looks like at a level (6)
… 12 months of post-prison supervision.” The court subsequently entered a judgment that imposed a 24-month post-prison supervision (PPS) term. This appeal followed.
         In a combined argument, defendant contends that
the trial court impermissibly modified his sentence after
announcing a different PPS term in open court. “A criminal
defendant has the right to have their sentence announced in
open court. A trial court commits reversible error if it does
not do so, and the result is usually a resentencing.” State v.
Priester, 

, 

, rev den, 

 (2023) (citations omitted). However, we lack authority
“to review any part of a sentence resulting from a stipulated
sentencing agreement between the state and the defendant.”
ORS 138.105(9).
        Here, the parties stipulated that defendant would be
sentenced to “a Grid Block 6-D DOC; Downward departure
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)        319

to 30 days incarceration with 3 years probation.” The PPS
term for that grid block is 24 months, OAR 213-004-0001,
and “departures on the duration of PPS are not allowed.”
State v. Dillon, 

, 

 (2020);
OAR 213-005-0002(1). Thus, despite what the trial court
announced at the probation revocation hearing, defendant’s
24-month PPS term “result[ed] from a stipulated sentencing
agreement between the state and … defendant” and we
“[have] no authority to review any part” of that sentence.
ORS 138.105(9).
        Affirmed.