Alford plea in Oregon

2026Generally, a claim could “reasonably have been raised” when (1) the information necessary to raise the claim was “reasonably available” to the petitioner during 1 An “Alford plea” refers to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 , 91 S Ct 160 , 27 L Ed 2d 162 (1970).

2026Generally, a claim could “reasonably have been raised” when (1) the information necessary to raise the claim was “reasonably available” to the petitioner during 1 An “Alford plea” refers to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 US 25 , 91 S Ct 160 , 27 L Ed 2d 162 (1970).

2025As we recently explained: “ ‘An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant does not admit commission of the criminal act or asserts that he is innocent.’ State v. Sullivan, 197 Or App 26 , 28 n 1, 104 P3d 636 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (concluding that it was not plain error for a trial court to rely on an Alford plea as an admission of facts justifying a sentence enhance- ment).

2022“An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant does not admit commission of the criminal act or asserts that he is innocent.” State v. Sullivan, 197 Or App 26 , 28 n 1, 104 P3d 636 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (concluding that it was not plain error for a trial court to rely on an Alford plea as an admission of facts justifying a sentence enhancement).

2025As we recently explained: “ ‘An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant does not admit commission of the criminal act or asserts that he is innocent.’ State v. Sullivan, 197 Or App 26 , 28 n 1, 104 P3d 636 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (concluding that it was not plain error for a trial court to rely on an Alford plea as an admission of facts justifying a sentence enhance- ment).

2025As we recently explained: “ ‘An Alford plea is a guilty plea in which the defendant does not admit commission of the criminal act or asserts that he is innocent.’ State v. Sullivan, 197 Or App 26 , 28 n 1, 104 P3d 636 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (concluding that it was not plain error for a trial court to rely on an Alford plea as an admission of facts justifying a sentence enhance- ment).

2026P., 339 Or App 134, 138 , 566 P3d 1187 (2025) (an Alford plea “is equivalent to a ‘no contest’ plea under ORS 135.335(1)(c)”). 2 Petitioner also asserted an actual innocence claim.

2026P., 339 Or App 134, 138 , 566 P3d 1187 (2025) (an Alford plea “is equivalent to a ‘no contest’ plea under ORS 135.335(1)(c)”). 2 Petitioner also asserted an actual innocence claim.

2026“With an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.” State v. Jackson, 319 Or App 789, 791 , 511 P3d 82 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see also State v. B.

2026“With an Alford plea, a defendant does not admit guilt but admits that sufficient evidence exists to convict him of the offense.” State v. Jackson, 319 Or App 789, 791 , 511 P3d 82 (2022) (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see also State v. B.

2022Article I, section 17, guarantees a jury trial in two categories of cases: (1) cases “in which the right to a jury trial was customary at the time the Oregon Constitution was adopted” in 1857 and (2) cases “of like nature.” Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 173 , 376 P3d 998 (2016); accord State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car 2 In the underlying criminal case, Hershey entered an Alford plea to the charge based on the neglect of the dogs.

2022Article I, section 17, guarantees a jury trial in two categories of cases: (1) cases “in which the right to a jury trial was customary at the time the Oregon Constitution was adopted” in 1857 and (2) cases “of like nature.” Horton v. OHSU, 359 Or 168, 173 , 376 P3d 998 (2016); accord State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car 2 In the underlying criminal case, Hershey entered an Alford plea to the charge based on the neglect of the dogs.

2021Cite as 310 Or App 171 (2021) 179 At the hearing, both father and stepmother flatly denied that stepmother ever abused E or the other children, emphasizing that stepmother made an “Alford plea” to the criminal mistreatment charge, meaning that she main- tained her innocence.

2019On appeal, defendant challenges the award of res- titution for the medical expenses, contending that, under State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138 , 372 P3d 614 , rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016), there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the claimed medical expenses were reasonable.

2019On appeal, defendant challenges the award of res- titution for the medical expenses, contending that, under State v. McClelland, 278 Or App 138 , 372 P3d 614 , rev den, 360 Or 423 (2016), there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the claimed medical expenses were reasonable.

2019In such a situation, the trial court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.” State v. Sullivan, 197 Or App 26 , 28 n 1, 104 P3d 636 (2005), rev den, 340 Or 673 (2006) (emphasis in original). 2 ORS 137.103(4)(c) provides that the “Crime Injuries Compensation Account” qualifies as a “victim” entitled to receive restitution “if it has expended moneys on behalf” of “[t]he person or decedent against whom the defendant committed the criminal offense, if the court determines that the person or decedent has suffered or did suffer economic damages as a result of the offense.” 624 St

2019Deschutes County Circuit Court 16CR57308; A165068 455 P3d 566 Defendant was convicted of third-degree assault, ORS 163.165(2)(a), based on an Alford plea.

2005In particular, defendant asserts that (1) under the reasoning of Blakely v. Washington, 542 US _ , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on defendant’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, ORS 475.995, was unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing a 60-month probationary sentence on defendant’s conviction for sodomy in the third degree, ORS 163.385.

2005In particular, defendant asserts that (1) under the reasoning of Blakely v. Washington, 542 US _ , 124 S Ct 2531 , 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004), the trial court’s imposition of an upward departure sentence on defendant’s conviction for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, ORS 475.995, was unconstitutional; and (2) the trial court erred in imposing a 60-month probationary sentence on defendant’s conviction for sodomy in the third degree, ORS 163.385.

2005An alleged error is apparent on the face of the record only if it is “obvious,” that is, that “the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

2005An alleged error is apparent on the face of the record only if it is “obvious,” that is, that “the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

1996Merchants Mutual Insurance Company v. Arzillo, 98 App Div 495 , 472 NYS2d 97 (1984); but see Safeco Insurance Company of America v. McGrath, 42 Wash App 58, 708 P2d 657 (1985) (criminal conviction based on Alford-type guilty plea not entitled to preclusive effect); Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kollar, 243 NJ Super 150, 578 A2d 1238 (App Div 1990) (plea of guilty to aggravated arson does not establish that defendant intended specific property damage that resulted); Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Niziolek, 395 Mass 737, 481 NE2d 1356 (1985) (no issue preclusion bec

1996Merchants Mutual Insurance Company v. Arzillo, 98 App Div 495 , 472 NYS2d 97 (1984); but see Safeco Insurance Company of America v. McGrath, 42 Wash App 58, 708 P2d 657 (1985) (criminal conviction based on Alford-type guilty plea not entitled to preclusive effect); Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kollar, 243 NJ Super 150, 578 A2d 1238 (App Div 1990) (plea of guilty to aggravated arson does not establish that defendant intended specific property damage that resulted); Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Niziolek, 395 Mass 737, 481 NE2d 1356 (1985) (no issue preclusion bec

1996Merchants Mutual Insurance Company v. Arzillo, 98 App Div 495 , 472 NYS2d 97 (1984); but see Safeco Insurance Company of America v. McGrath, 42 Wash App 58, 708 P2d 657 (1985) (criminal conviction based on Alford-type guilty plea not entitled to preclusive effect); Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Kollar, 243 NJ Super 150, 578 A2d 1238 (App Div 1990) (plea of guilty to aggravated arson does not establish that defendant intended specific property damage that resulted); Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Niziolek, 395 Mass 737, 481 NE2d 1356 (1985) (no issue preclusion bec