Case ID: or-app_123/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted June 30,
    affirmed September 1,
    reconsideration denied October 13, petition for review denied November 30, 1993 (318 Or 98)
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONAVON JOHN SHELTON, Appellant.
    
    (C91-0479CR; CA A72291)
    858 P2d 917
    Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    
      Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Durham, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant pled no contest to a charge of felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years under ORS 163.115 and a life term of post-prison supervision. He assigns error to imposition of the life terms. Defendant’s plea resulted from negotiations in which the state dismissed seven other felony charges and the parties stipulated to the grid block for the offense and to the presumptive range of incarceration. The sentence resulted from the agreement and is not reviewable. ORS 138.222 (2)(d); State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993). Even if it were, defendant failed to preserve his claim of error and it is not apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990). We may not review it. State v. Farmer, 317 Or 220, 856 P2d 623 (1993); State v. Castrejon, 317 Or 202, 856 P2d 616 (1993).

Defendant also argues that the court erred in ordering him to submit to a blood draw pursuant to ORS 137.076. Assuming that his objection to the trial court preserved the constitutional argument that he makes on appeal, we may not review it. Defendant pled no contest, and our review is limited to whether the disposition exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. ORS 138.050. See State v. Smith, 121 Or App 677, 856 P2d 321 (1993).

Affirmed.