facts that comprise error in Oregon

2018We may review an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as one that is "apparent on the record" under ORAP 5.45(1) if certain conditions are met: "(1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable." Reynolds , 250 Or.App. at 519 -20 , 280 P.3d 1046 (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2018We may review an unpreserved error as one that is "apparent on the record" under ORAP 5.45(1) if certain conditions are met: "(1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and *354 (3) the error appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable." State v. Reynolds , 250 Or.

2018We may review an unpreserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as one that is "apparent on the record" under ORAP 5.45(1) if certain conditions are met: "(1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable." Reynolds , 250 Or.App. at 519 -20 , 280 P.3d 1046 (brackets, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2012The legal point that defendant asserts is reasonably in dispute, and, therefore, any error is not “apparent.” See State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 519-20 , 280 P3d 1046 (2012) (“[W]e may review an unpreserved error as one apparent on the record under ORAP 5.45(1) if certain conditions are met: (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the erro

2020There are three requirements for plain-error review: “(1) the error must be an error of law; (2) it must be ‘apparent,’ in that the ‘legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute’; and 478 State v. Stacey (3) it must appear on the record such that ‘[w]e need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefut- able.’ ” State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)).

2020There are three requirements for plain-error review: “(1) the error must be an error of law; (2) it must be ‘apparent,’ in that the ‘legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute’; and 478 State v. Stacey (3) it must appear on the record such that ‘[w]e need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefut- able.’ ” State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715 , 320 P3d 670 (2014) (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990)).

2016Even where those conditions are satisfied, however, “we must determine whether to exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it.” State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)).

2016Even where those conditions are satisfied, however, “we must determine whether to exercise our discretion to reach the error and correct it.” State v. Reynolds, 250 Or App 516, 520 , 280 P3d 1046 , rev den, 352 Or 666 (2012) (citing Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or 376, 382 , 823 P2d 956 (1991)).

2026Nonprecedential Memo Op: 350 Or App 123 (2026) 125 between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990).

2023An error is plain if (1) the error is one of law, (2) the legal point is obvious and “not reasonably in dispute,” and (3) to reach the error, the court does not need to go “outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 590-91 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).

2023An error is plain if (1) the error is one of law, (2) the legal point is obvious and “not reasonably in dispute,” and (3) to reach the error, the court does not need to go “outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” State v. Tilden, 252 Or App 581, 590-91 , 288 P3d 567 (2012).

2019We have held that, “if the other requirements of ORS 137.542(2) are satisfied—that is, if a person holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation— the probation conditions related to the use of usable mari- juana and specified cannabinoid products must comply with the statute.” State v. Jerscheid, 294 Or App 564, 566 , 432 P3d 380 (2018) (emphasis omitted).

2019We have held that, “if the other requirements of ORS 137.542(2) are satisfied—that is, if a person holds a registry identification card and is sentenced to probation— the probation conditions related to the use of usable mari- juana and specified cannabinoid products must comply with the statute.” State v. Jerscheid, 294 Or App 564, 566 , 432 P3d 380 (2018) (emphasis omitted).

2018App. 563 , 569-70, 204 P.3d 162 (2009), to argue that a "trial court d[oes] not commit plain error by failing to advise an allegedly mentally ill person about voluntary treatment and conditional release" and, therefore, "any error was *** not obvious in light of that case." We may review an unpreserved assignment of error under ORAP 5.45(1) if certain conditions are met: "(1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose

2016Analysis Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, provides, in part, that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel.” An accused defendant’s right to be heard under that provision encompasses the common-law right to allocution— that is, “a convicted defendant’s opportunity to speak before sentencing.” DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 306 Or 91, 93-94 , 93 n 1, 757 P2d 1355 (1988).

2016Analysis Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, provides, in part, that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right * * * to be heard by himself and counsel.” An accused defendant’s right to be heard under that provision encompasses the common-law right to allocution— that is, “a convicted defendant’s opportunity to speak before sentencing.” DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 306 Or 91, 93-94 , 93 n 1, 757 P2d 1355 (1988).

2015State v. Higgins, 258 Or App 177, 179 , 308 P3d 352 (2013) (“We may consider, under ORAP 5.45(a), unpreserved issues if the error (1) is one of law; (2) is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted.))).

2015State v. Higgins, 258 Or App 177, 179 , 308 P3d 352 (2013) (“We may consider, under ORAP 5.45(a), unpreserved issues if the error (1) is one of law; (2) is apparent, in that the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute; and (3) appears on the face of the record, such that we need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” (quoting State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 800 P2d 259 (1990) (internal quotation marks and punctuation omitted.))).

2014To support his argument, defendant cites State v. Nelson, 241 Or App 681, 689 , 251 P3d 240 (2011), rev dismissed, 354 Or 62 (2012), in which we concluded “that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, in order to convict defendant of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse, the state was required to prove that defendant knowingly subjected the victim to forcible compulsion^] ” and State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which we concluded that the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was plain error.

2014To support his argument, defendant cites State v. Nelson, 241 Or App 681, 689 , 251 P3d 240 (2011), rev dismissed, 354 Or 62 (2012), in which we concluded “that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, in order to convict defendant of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse, the state was required to prove that defendant knowingly subjected the victim to forcible compulsion^] ” and State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which we concluded that the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was plain error.

2014To support his argument, defendant cites State v. Nelson, 241 Or App 681, 689 , 251 P3d 240 (2011), rev dismissed, 354 Or 62 (2012), in which we concluded “that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, in order to convict defendant of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse, the state was required to prove that defendant knowingly subjected the victim to forcible compulsion^] ” and State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which we concluded that the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was plain error.

2014To support his argument, defendant cites State v. Nelson, 241 Or App 681, 689 , 251 P3d 240 (2011), rev dismissed, 354 Or 62 (2012), in which we concluded “that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, in order to convict defendant of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse, the state was required to prove that defendant knowingly subjected the victim to forcible compulsion^] ” and State v. Gray, 261 Or App 121 , 322 P3d 1094 (2014), in which we concluded that the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was plain error.

2012Although we generally will not consider an unpreserved issue on appeal, State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000), we may nevertheless review an unpreserved assignment of error as plain error under ORAP 5.45(1), provided that (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is “apparent,” in that the “legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record” such that we “need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 80

2012Although we generally will not consider an unpreserved issue on appeal, State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 341 , 15 P3d 22 (2000), we may nevertheless review an unpreserved assignment of error as plain error under ORAP 5.45(1), provided that (1) the error is one of law; (2) the error is “apparent,” in that the “legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute”; and (3) the error appears “on the face of the record” such that we “need not go outside the record or choose between competing inferences to find it, and the facts that comprise the error are irrefutable.” State v. Brown, 310 Or 347, 355 , 80