Court Opinion

ID: 9795146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:21:23.418884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:26.572034
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, S. J.,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the trial court erred in determining that petitioner received inadequate assistance of appellate counsel. The majority reasons that, although petitioner received a sentence that exceeded the maximum sentence allowable by law, appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise that issue on appeal, because the sentence would not have been reviewable on direct appeal. 174 Or App at 570-71. The majority is incorrect. The issue could and should have been raised on direct appeal, and appellate counsel provided inadequate assistance by failing to identify the issue and to seek review of petitioner’s unlawful sentence.
The majority relies on State v. Upton, 132 Or App 579, 889 P2d 376 (1994), rev den 320 Or 749 (1995), for the proposition that, because petitioner stipulated to the sentence that exceeded the maximum sentence allowable by law, that sentence was unreviewable under ORS 138.222(2)(d). In Upton, the court refused to consider the defendant’s argument that her sentence exceeded the maximum allowable by *573law, because the defendant had stipulated to that sentence. The court in Upton based its conclusion on an erroneous application of the rule of law announced in State v. Adams, 315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993). Upton was decided incorrectly.
In Adams, the court held that ORS 138.222(2)(d) precluded direct appellate review of a claim that the sentencing court failed to make adequate findings in support of a departure sentence, because the defendant had stipulated to the sentence.1 The sentence at issue in Adams, however, did not exceed the maximum sentence allowable by law. See Adams, 315 Or at 368 (Van Hoomissen, J., concurring) (parties may not stipulate “that a defendant could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum sentence prescribed by law”). In State v. Kephart, 320 Or 433, 441-42, 887 P2d 774 (1994), the court discussed the meaning of the term stipulated sentencing “agreement” as it is used in ORS 138.222(2)(d), concluding that the type of stipulation contemplated by ORS 138.222(2)(d) is the type authorized by ORS 135.407. ORS 135.407, in turn, deals with the different types of stipulated sentences that a court may approve. Each type of sentence discussed in that statute is specifically authorized by law. In short, the types of stipulated sentences that a court may “approve on the record,” ORS 138.222(2)(d), must be authorized by law. “A sentence must be in conformity with the governing statute; any nonconforming sentence is void for lack of authority and, thus, totally without legal effect.” State v. Leathers, 271 Or 228, 240, 531 P2d 278 (1975).
Because petitioner’s sentence was not authorized by law, it was not the type of sentence that a sentencing court had authority to “approve on the record” and, therefore, review of that sentence was not barred by ORS 138.222(2)(d). *574The trial court correctly determined that petitioner’s appellate counsel provided inadequate assistance in failing to raise this issue on direct appeal as “error apparent on the face of the record.” The majority errs in concluding otherwise. I respectfully dissent.2

 ORS 138.222(2)(d) provides, in part:
“On appeal from a judgment of conviction entered for a felony committed on or after November 1,1989, the appellate court shall not review:
“(d) Any sentence resulting from an agreement between the state and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record.”

 Given how I would dispose of the issue raised on cross-appeal, I would also reach the merits of the issue petitioner raises on appeal. Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court erred in setting aside his conviction on the ground that the stipulated sentence was unlawful and asserts that only the sentence should have been set aside. What petitioner fails to mention in his appeal is that, in the course of the post-conviction proceeding, the state offered him a revised lawful stipulated sentence of 60 months. He chose, however, to forego the opportunity to amend his stipulated sentence despite the post-conviction court’s explicit statement that his post-conviction remedy would be to set aside the entire bargain and revive the prosecution against him. The post-conviction court had discretion to craft an appropriate remedy in this case, and did so. See generally Brock v. Baldwin, 171 Or App 188, 195-96, 14 P3d 651 (2000) (post-conviction court may craft remedy that is proper and just; it is not limited to relief sought by petitioner). Accordingly, I would reach the merits of petitioner’s appeal, and affirm.