Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court considered whether a defendant who pleaded no contest to misdemeanor DUII could appeal a sentence under ORS 138.050 to challenge a fine allegedly imposed in retaliation for exercising the right to plead no contest. The court held that the appeal was not cognizable because the fine did not exceed the statutory maximum and the defendant did not claim that it was unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. The court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether ORS 138.050(1)(a) permits a defendant who pleaded no contest to appeal a misdemeanor sentence on the ground that the procedure used to impose the sentence violated the federal Due Process Clause.
- Whether a disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law under ORS 138.050(1)(a) when it is within the statutory sentencing range but allegedly was imposed through unconstitutional procedures.
Holdings
- For a defendant who pleaded guilty or no contest, a disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law only when it exceeds a maximum expressed by legislation, such as a statutory sentencing limit; the phrase does not encompass a sentence allegedly imposed through procedures violating the federal Due Process Clause.
- The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because Cloutier's $1,100 fine was below the statutory maximum and his due-process challenge did not fall within ORS 138.050(1)(a) or (1)(b).
Key quotations
“We conclude that the reference to a disposition that "[e]xceeds the maximum allowable by law" in ORS 138.050(1)(a) does not refer to a sentence that was imposed by means of procedures that violate the Due Process Clause of the federal constitution. To the contrary, it refers to a disposition that exceeds a maximum expressed by means of legislation, not the state or federal constitution.” (351 Or. at 84)
Factual background
Cloutier pleaded no contest to one count of misdemeanor DUII and entered a DUII diversion program. After he failed to complete diversion, the trial court entered a judgment of conviction and imposed a $1,100 fine, although the mandatory minimum was $1,000 and the statutory maximum was $6,250. The trial court stated that the additional $100 was imposed because Cloutier had entered a no-contest plea.
Procedural history
Cloutier pleaded no contest to misdemeanor DUII and entered diversion. After he failed to complete diversion, the trial court entered a conviction and imposed a $1,100 fine, explaining that the amount above the $1,000 mandatory minimum was based on his no-contest plea. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, then reconsidered and accepted jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the appeal.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Oregon Court of Appeals for entry of an order dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.