Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. 1 The statute governs appeals from a judgment of conviction entered for a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989. ORS 138.222(1). 2 The state does not contend that we lack jurisdiction over defendant’s appeal, but it disputes defendant’s contention that we have jurisdiction under ORS 138.050. We agree with the state. See Davis, 265 Or App at 438 (jurisdiction over the defendant’s appeal based on merger argument is under ORS 138.222(7), which allows appeal from a judgment “based on the sentence for a felony”). 3 If the claim is unreviewable under ORS 138.222(2)(a), an appellant cannot rely upon ORS 138.222(4)(a) as an exception to (2)(a) to establish reviewability. See State v. Casiano, 214 Or App 509, 515, 166 P3d 599 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 4 In its answering brief, the state 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing such an exception (B) holding that ors 1382224a is not an exception to ors 1382222a (C) holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act (D) recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception (E) recognizing exception
Output (English): holding that  1983 is not an exception to the state tax injunction act