State v. McClintock-Perez

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s challenge to a statutory probation condition requiring compliance with state law when state and federal law conflict was not preserved because the condition was announced through the court’s reference to standard probation terms. The court further held that any alleged constitutional error under the Supremacy Clause was not plain error because the legal issue was reasonably in dispute and lacked controlling authority.

Holdings

1. Preservation was not excused because the trial court's announcement that it was imposing the standard terms and conditions of probation sufficiently referred to the generally applicable statutory conditions in ORS 137.540(1), including the challenged condition.
2. The alleged error was not plain because the asserted Supremacy Clause violation was reasonably in dispute and no direct Oregon appellate authority established that the probation condition was unconstitutional.

Questions Presented

1. Whether preservation should be excused because the challenged probation condition appeared for the first time in the written judgment.
2. Whether imposing ORS 137.540(1)(h)'s general probation condition violated the Supremacy Clause.
3. Whether any error in imposing the condition was plain error warranting discretionary appellate correction.

Disposition

affirmed