State v. Fults, 343 Or. 515

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' decision to consider an unpreserved challenge to a probation sentence as plain error. It held that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by relying solely on the state's lack of a valid interest in enforcing an unlawful sentence, without weighing other relevant factors. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. An appellate court may not exercise its discretion to review an unpreserved error of law apparent on the face of the record solely on the rationale that the State has no valid interest in requiring a defendant to serve an unlawful sentence. The court must consider the relevant circumstances and articulate its reasons for exercising discretion.
2. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the case was remanded to that court for further proceedings because its stated rationale for exercising discretion was legally insufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion under ORAP 5.45(1) by reviewing an unpreserved sentencing error solely because the State had no valid interest in requiring defendant to serve an unlawful sentence.
2. What factors an appellate court must consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion to review an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should decide, on this record, whether the sentencing error was invited, waived, or otherwise reviewable as plain error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded