State v. Lane ( 2024 )

No. 786 October 30, 2024 793
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JESSE ALLEN LANE,
nka Jesse Aaron-Richard Hastings,
Defendant-Appellant.
Columbia County Circuit Court
16CR64847; A179001
Ted E. Grove, Judge.
Submitted September 25, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin
Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt,
Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Powers, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
POWERS, J.
Affirmed.
794 State v. Lane
POWERS, J.
In this criminal proceeding, defendant appeals
from a judgment convicting him of murder and raises three
assignments of error, the first two of which are focused on
the trial court’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his pleas
and the last of which challenges a portion of the judgment.
We conclude that the first two assignments of error are not
reviewable under ORS 138.105(5) and the last assignment
of error is moot given the entry of an amended judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Because the parties are familiar with the undis-
puted procedural facts, we provide only a condensed sum-
mary for this nonprecedential memorandum opinion.
Defendant pleaded guilty to murder and first-degree kid-
napping for his role in the death of A, who was found dead
in 2016 in a remote part of Columbia County with fatal
injuries. An investigation revealed that three people were
involved in kidnapping A, driving her out to the area, and
killing her. Ultimately, about a year after A was murdered,
defendant and the state entered into a cooperation and plea
agreement. Defendant agreed to plead guilty to murder
and first-degree kidnapping, be sentenced to life without
the possibility of parole for 25 years and a lifetime term of
post-prison supervision (PPS) on the murder count, and he
would be able to withdraw his kidnapping plea and have all
counts except murder be dismissed if he fully cooperated in
the prosecution of two codefendants.
Years later, defendant filed a motion to withdraw
his plea, alleging that the state breached the plea agree-
ment and that he received an incorrect sentence such that
the only adequate remedy was to allow him to withdraw
his plea. While that motion was pending, he filed a motion
to compel a constitutionally and statutorily compliant plea
agreement. The trial court denied both motions. Defendant
timely appeals, advancing three assignments of error.
On appeal, defendant asserts in his first two assign-
ments of error that the trial court erred by denying his motion
to withdraw his pleas and by denying his motion to compel a
“constitutionally and statutorily compliant plea agreement.”
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 335 Or App 793 (2024) 795
The state remonstrates that the first two assignments of
error are not reviewable under ORS 138.105(5), which lim-
its reviewability of convictions arising from guilty pleas. We
agree with the state’s argument.
ORS 138.105(5) provides that we have “no author-
ity 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” except under circumstances that
are not present in this case.1 Because defendant’s first two
assignments of error relate to the validity of his guilty plea,
we summarily conclude that his claims are not reviewable.
See State v. Colgrove, 370 Or 474, 497, 521 P3d 456 (2022)
(concluding that the legislature intended ORS 138.105(5) “to
preclude a defendant who has pleaded guilty or no contest
from obtaining appellate review of legal challenges to the
conviction in the judgment entered in the trial court”).
In his third assignment of error, defendant contends
that the trial court erred by failing to order in the judgment
that he would be eligible for parole after 25 years. While this
appeal was pending, the trial court exercised its authority
under ORS 137.172 and entered an amended judgment in
September 2024.2 The amended judgment tracks the lan-
guage of ORS 163.115(5)(b) (2015), which was in effect at the
time of the crime:
“The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The
defendant shall be confined for a minimum of 25 years
1
The exceptions relate to a conditional plea that reserved the right to chal-
lenge an adverse ruling after a pretrial motion and specified merger issues. ORS
138.105(5) provides, in full:
“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity of the defen-
dant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction based on the defendant’s
plea of guilty or no contest, except that:
“(a) The appellate court has authority to review the trial court’s adverse
determination of a pretrial motion reserved in a conditional plea of guilty or
no contest under ORS 135.335.
“(b) The appellate court has authority to review whether the trial court
erred by not merging determinations of guilt of two or more offenses, unless
the entry of separate convictions results from an agreement between the
state and the defendant.”
2
Although referred to as the amended judgment, the September 2024 judg-
ment is the second amended judgment. The trial court’s first amended judgment,
which was issued about a month after the original judgment, added a term of PPS
for life, but did not clarify defendant’s eligibility for parole.
796 State v. Lane
without [the] possibility of parole, release to post-prison
supervision, release on work release or any form of tempo-
rary leave or employment at a forest or work camp.”
Given that amended judgment, we conclude that defen-
dant’s third assignment of error is moot. See State v. Porter,
313 Or App 565, 568, 494 P3d 988 (2021) (noting that an
amended judgment can moot assignments of error by resolv-
ing issues raised by them).
Affirmed.