135.407 Plea
agreement must contain defendant’s criminal history classification;
stipulations. In
cases arising from felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989:
(1) Whenever a
plea agreement is presented to the sentencing judge, the defendant’s criminal
history classification, as set forth in the rules of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission, shall be accurately represented to the trial judge in the
plea agreement. If a controversy exists as to whether a prior conviction or
juvenile adjudication should be included in the defendant’s criminal history,
or as to its classification under rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission, the district attorney and the defendant may stipulate to the
inclusion, exclusion or classification of the conviction or adjudication as
part of the plea agreement subject to approval of the court.
(2) The district
attorney and the defendant may stipulate to the grid block classification
within the sentencing guidelines grid established by the rules of the Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission that will provide the presumptive sentence range
for the offender. The sentencing judge may accept the stipulated classification
and impose the presumptive sentence provided in the rules of the Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission for that grid block.
(3) If the
district attorney and the defendant stipulate to a grid block classification
within the sentencing guidelines grid, and the sentencing judge accepts the
stipulated classification but imposes a sentence other than the presumptive
sentence provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, the
sentence is a departure sentence and is subject to rules of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission related to departures.
(4) The district
attorney and defendant may stipulate to a specific sentence within the
presumptive range provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
for the stipulated offender classification. If the sentencing judge accepts the
plea agreement, the judge shall impose the stipulated sentence.
(5) The district
attorney and the defendant may stipulate to a sentence outside the presumptive
sentence range for a stipulated grid block classification. The sentencing judge
may accept an agreement for an optional probationary sentence or a departure
sentence as provided in rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1989
c.790 §2]
135.410 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
43
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 24× “For context, the court looked to another statute— ORS 135.407—which “describes several ways in which the state and a defendant may ‘stipulate’ to a sentence” that is subject to the guidelines.”
State v. Silsby, 386 P.3d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 14× “222(2)(d) does not bar review of sentences “unless they [are] ‘stipulated sentences’ as illustrated in ORS 135.407.” 3 Kephart, 320 Or at 447 (emphasis *112 added).”
State v. Kephart, 887 P.2d 774 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 18× “” ORS 135.407 9 describes several ways in which the state and a *442 defendant may “stipulate” to a sentence.”
State v. Adams, 847 P.2d 397 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 14× “Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. *400 Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992 .”
State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 14× “Defendant acknowledges that he stipulated to the sentences as part of his plea agreement to the origi- nal charges, but contends that, because his stipulation to future probation-revocation sanctions is not like those stip- ulations specified in ORS 135.407,2 and the stipulation…”
State v. Davis-McCoy, 454 P.3d 48 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “222(2)(d) (2015) because it was not a “stipulated sentence” as “illus- trated in ORS 135.407.” Id. at 111-12 (discussing State v.”
State v. Upton, 889 P.2d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 13× “222(2)(d) and held that it “allow[s] review of sentences unless they [are] ‘stipulated sentences’ as illustrated in ORS 135.407.” 320 Or at 447 . Therefore, we must examine the plea agreement here to determine if it results in a “stipulated sentence” such that review is…”
State v. Young, 71 P.3d 119 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “222(2)(d) “allow [s] review of sentences unless they were ‘stipulated sentences’ as illustrated in ORS 135.407.” State v. Kephart, 320 Or 433, 447, 887 P2d 774 (1994); see State v.”
Blackledge v. Morrow, 26 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “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.”
State v. Johnston, 851 P.2d 1156 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, the defendant argued that any representation regarding criminal history had to be accurate under ORS 135.407 and OAR 253-07-002. In the light of the importance of criminal history to the guidelines scheme, see, e.”
State v. George, 873 P.2d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “ORS 135.407(4) provides: “The district attorney and defendant may stipulate to a specific sentence within the presumptive range provided by rules of the State Sentencing Guidelines Board for the stipulated offender classification.”
State v. Davis, 895 P.2d 1374 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “222(2)(d) precludes review of any sentence resulting from a stipulated sentencing agreement “as illustrated in ORS 135.407.” One type of stipulated sentencing agreement described in ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.407(1) — 7 cases
State v. Adams, 847 P.2d 397 (Or. 1993).
“Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. *400 Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992 .”
State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant acknowledges that he stipulated to the sentences as part of his plea agreement to the origi- nal charges, but contends that, because his stipulation to future probation-revocation sanctions is not like those stip- ulations specified in ORS 135.407,2 and the stipulation…”
State v. Upton, 889 P.2d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“222(2)(d) and held that it “allow[s] review of sentences unless they [are] ‘stipulated sentences’ as illustrated in ORS 135.407.” 320 Or at 447 . Therefore, we must examine the plea agreement here to determine if it results in a “stipulated sentence” such that review is…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.407(2) — 12 cases
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
“For context, the court looked to another statute— ORS 135.407—which “describes several ways in which the state and a defendant may ‘stipulate’ to a sentence” that is subject to the guidelines.”
State v. Adams, 847 P.2d 397 (Or. 1993).
“Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. *400 Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992 .”
State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant acknowledges that he stipulated to the sentences as part of his plea agreement to the origi- nal charges, but contends that, because his stipulation to future probation-revocation sanctions is not like those stip- ulations specified in ORS 135.407,2 and the stipulation…”
State v. Kephart, 887 P.2d 774 (Or. 1994).
“” ORS 135.407 9 describes several ways in which the state and a *442 defendant may “stipulate” to a sentence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.407(3) — 6 cases
State v. Adams, 847 P.2d 397 (Or. 1993).
“Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. *400 Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992 .”
State v. Kephart, 887 P.2d 774 (Or. 1994).
“” ORS 135.407 9 describes several ways in which the state and a *442 defendant may “stipulate” to a sentence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.407(4) — 11 cases
State v. Adams, 847 P.2d 397 (Or. 1993).
“Second, on the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence here did not meet the requirements of ORS 135.407. *400 Id. at 440, 823 P.2d 992 .”
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
“For context, the court looked to another statute— ORS 135.407—which “describes several ways in which the state and a defendant may ‘stipulate’ to a sentence” that is subject to the guidelines.”
State v. George, 873 P.2d 468 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“ORS 135.407(4) provides: “The district attorney and defendant may stipulate to a specific sentence within the presumptive range provided by rules of the State Sentencing Guidelines Board for the stipulated offender classification.”
State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant acknowledges that he stipulated to the sentences as part of his plea agreement to the origi- nal charges, but contends that, because his stipulation to future probation-revocation sanctions is not like those stip- ulations specified in ORS 135.407,2 and the stipulation…”
State v. Kephart, 887 P.2d 774 (Or. 1994).
“” ORS 135.407 9 describes several ways in which the state and a *442 defendant may “stipulate” to a sentence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.407(5) — 7 cases
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
“For context, the court looked to another statute— ORS 135.407—which “describes several ways in which the state and a defendant may ‘stipulate’ to a sentence” that is subject to the guidelines.”
State v. Neill, 526 P.3d 1221 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant acknowledges that he stipulated to the sentences as part of his plea agreement to the origi- nal charges, but contends that, because his stipulation to future probation-revocation sanctions is not like those stip- ulations specified in ORS 135.407,2 and the stipulation…”
State v. Kephart, 887 P.2d 774 (Or. 1994).
“” ORS 135.407 9 describes several ways in which the state and a *442 defendant may “stipulate” to a sentence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.