No. 588 August 28, 2024 497

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTIAN GOIN, 

aka Christian Joseph Goin,

Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court

21CR49716; A181383

James C. Edmonds, Judge.

Submitted July 12, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate 

Section, and Marc Brown, Senior Deputy Defender, Oregon 

Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived 

appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.
498 State v. Goin

LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for 

escape in the first degree, ORS 162.165, robbery in the first 

degree, ORS 164.415, kidnapping in the second degree, ORS 

163.225, and possession of a weapon by an inmate, ORS 

166.275. Defendant pleaded guilty to those charges. The 

trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 95 months in 

prison. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant 

to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069 

(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP 

5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1

Having reviewed the record, we note that, before 

entering his plea, defendant moved to remand the case to 

juvenile court on the ground that the juvenile court had 

exclusive jurisdiction because defendant was under the age 

of 18 when he escaped from MacLaren Youth Correctional 

Facility. Defendant was still under 18 when he was arrested 

and returned to that facility. However, by the time the 

state charged defendant, he had turned 18. After holding 

a hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled that it had 

jurisdiction because defendant was returned to MacLaren 

on his original charges, and he was not in “protective custody” on the new charges at that time. See Brown v. Zenon,

133 Or App 291, 295, 891 P2d 666 (1995) (“[J]urisdiction 

attaches when a child is taken into protective custody. ORS 

419B.157; ORS 419C.094. If a child is not taken into protective custody, jurisdiction attaches when other steps are 

taken to initiate judicial proceedings.”).

In 1997, ORS 419C.094 was amended to delete the 

word “protective.” Or Laws 1997, ch 727, § 4. ORS 419C.094 

now provides, in part, that “the jurisdiction of the juvenile 

court of the county in which a youth is taken into custody 

*** shall attach from the time the youth is taken into custody.” Because the statute no longer refers to protective custody, there are reasons to question the trial court’s ruling 

denying the motion to remand the case to juvenile court. 

1 As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge 

panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding 

matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v. 

Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).
Cite as 334 Or App 497 (2024) 499

Whether or not he was taken into protective custody before 

he turned 18, the statute now appears to provide that juvenile court jurisdiction attaches in delinquency cases when 

the youth is taken into custody.

However, after the ruling denying the remand, 

defendant pleaded guilty to four charges associated with 

his escape from MacLaren. Defendant did not enter a conditional plea pursuant to ORS 135.335(3) reserving his right 

to challenge the trial court’s ruling. Instead, in his petition 

to enter his pleas, defendant indicated that he understood 

that he was giving up all rights of appeal to this court, other 

than certain challenges to his sentence. As a result, we have 

no authority to reach the question of whether the trial court 

erred in denying the motion to remand. See ORS 138.105(5) 

(“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity 

of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction 

based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”); see 

also State v. Belzons, 140 Or App 198, 200-01, 915 P2d 428 

(1996), rev den, 324 Or 513 (1997) (defendant who pleaded no 

contest in district court could not, on appeal, challenge the 

district court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction).

Although we have no authority to reach the issue, 

defendant may not be without recourse to raise the issue of 

whether the 1997 statutory amendments altered the jurisdictional analysis in Brown, on which the trial court relied. 

See ORS 138.530.

Affirmed.