Background
Christopher Sean Bolds appealed from judgments entered in two consolidated criminal cases after he pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide and fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence and pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of intoxicants. As part of the plea agreement, the state recommended concurrent sentences of 41 months in prison for criminally negligent homicide, 48 hours in jail for DUII, and 180 days in jail for assault.
Bolds argued that the trial court deviated from the state’s sentencing recommendation without advising him that it intended to do so and giving him an opportunity to withdraw his pleas under ORS 135.390(5)(b). He also challenged language in the Case No. 22CR12074 judgment stating that the court could add collection fees and “other assessments” without further notice or court order.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that Bolds’s plea-related argument was reviewable but unpreserved because he had not sought to withdraw his pleas. The court declined to excuse preservation and also declined plain-error review. It reasoned that the state’s proposed interpretation—under which the statutory term “agreed disposition recommendation” applies only to recommendations made through an early disposition program—was plausible. Consequently, it was not obvious and beyond reasonable dispute that ORS 135.390(5)(b) applied to Bolds’s plea agreement. The court expressly did not decide how it would resolve that statutory question had the issue been preserved.
On the judgment language, the court applied State v. Martinez and held that ORS 1.202 permits a judgment to authorize the later addition of collection fees without further notice or court order, but does not authorize unspecified “other assessments.” Because that language misstated the law, the court reversed the judgment in Case No. 22CR12074 and remanded for an amended judgment deleting “and other assessments” and “and assessments.” It otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who claims that a sentencing court improperly departed from a plea-related recommendation must preserve the issue, ordinarily by seeking an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
- The court found no plain error because the scope of “agreed disposition recommendation” in ORS 135.390(5) was reasonably disputable.
- ORS 1.202 authorizes later-added collection fees, but it does not authorize a judgment’s open-ended reference to additional “other assessments.”
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of promptly objecting when a sentencing court does not follow a prosecutor’s promised recommendation. Without preservation, an appellate court may decline to resolve even a potentially significant question about a defendant’s statutory right to withdraw a plea.
It also confirms that Oregon judgments may reserve authority to add collection fees under ORS 1.202, but may not use broader language purporting to authorize unspecified assessments. The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.