138.005
Definitions for ORS 138.010 to 138.310. As used in ORS 138.010 to 138.310:
(1) Unless the
context requires otherwise, the terms defined in ORS 19.005 have the meanings
set forth in ORS 19.005.
(2) “Appealable”
means, in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the
judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party.
(3) “Colorable
claim of error” means an argument that is plausible, grounded in the facts of
the case, and reasonable under current law or a reasonable extension or
modification of current law.
(4) “Reviewable”
means, in reference to a particular decision of a trial court on appeal from an
appealable judgment or order, that the appellate court may, by law, consider
the decision and resolve an issue regarding the decision.
(5) “Sentence”
means all legal consequences established or imposed by the trial court after
conviction of an offense, including but not limited to:
(a) Forfeiture,
imprisonment, cancellation of license, removal from office, monetary
obligation, probation, conditions of probation, discharge, restitution and
community service; and
(b) Suspension of
imposition or execution of any part of a sentence, extension of a period of
probation, imposition of a new or modified condition of probation or of
sentence suspension, and imposition or execution of a sentence upon revocation
of probation or sentence suspension.
(6) “State”
includes, in addition to the State of Oregon and when referencing a party:
(a) The county,
in an appeal from a justice court that has become a court of record under ORS
51.025 in which the county is the plaintiff; and
(b) The city, in
an appeal from a municipal court that has become a court of record under ORS
221.342 in which the city is the plaintiff. [1959 c.558 §35; 2017 c.529 §1;
2025 c.268 §32]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 5× “115 (governing review- ability in state’s appeals); see also ORS 138.005(2) (defining “appealable,” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”); ORS 138.”
Bartz v. State of Oregon, 839 P.2d 217 (Or. 1992).
“071(1). By contrast, the PCHA gives the convicted person four times as long to review the circumstances of the conviction, consult with counsel, and consider whether a post-conviction claim is available, plus additional time to bring claims when the grounds for relief asserted…”
State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 373 Or. 816 (Or. 2025).
“”); ORS 138.005(5) (b) (defining “sentence” to include “imposition or execution of a sentence upon revocation of probation”).”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“585(2)(c) (stating that certain crimes will be treated as felonies unless, upon revocation of probation, “the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment other than to the legal and physical custody of the Department of Corrections”).”
State v. Clements, 333 P.3d 1177 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“” ORS 138.005. The definitions contained in ORS 19.”
Zimmerman v. State, 79 P.3d 910 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“The same could be said for the statutory scheme for direct criminal appeals, ORS 138.005 to 138.504. Nothing in that scheme authorizes an appellate court to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the appellant is a fugitive from justice, but inherent authority to do so…”
Felkel v. Thompson, 970 P.2d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
“Resort to context, particularly the statutes pertaining to criminal appeals, ORS 138.005 to ORS 138.510, confirms that construction.”
State v. Shumate, 330 P.3d 29 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “At that time, ORS 138.005 did provide that, “[a]s used in ORS 138.”
State v. McGowan, 345 Or. App. 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Compare ORS 138.005(2) (defining “Appealable” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”), with ORS 138.”
Perkins v. Fhuere, 374 Or. 575 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “13 Our conclusion that relator, in challenging the lawfulness of his convic- tion, is not also challenging his sentence, is consistent with a related statute, ORS 138.005(5), which defines “sentence” to mean “all legal consequences estab- lished or imposed by the trial court…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“585(2)(c) (stating that certain crimes will be treated as felonies unless, upon revocation of probation, “the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment other than to the legal and physical custody of the Department of Corrections”).”
State v. Rickey, 775 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 138.005; ORS 19.005(2); ORS 19.010. Although we have the authority in appropriate situations to give a trial court leave to enter an appealable judgment pursuant to ORS 19.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.005(2) — 3 cases
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
“115 (governing review- ability in state’s appeals); see also ORS 138.005(2) (defining “appealable,” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”); ORS 138.”
State v. McGowan, 345 Or. App. 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Compare ORS 138.005(2) (defining “Appealable” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”), with ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.005(4) — 3 cases
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
“115 (governing review- ability in state’s appeals); see also ORS 138.005(2) (defining “appealable,” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”); ORS 138.”
State v. McGowan, 345 Or. App. 652 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Compare ORS 138.005(2) (defining “Appealable” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”), with ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.005(5) — 4 cases
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
“115 (governing review- ability in state’s appeals); see also ORS 138.005(2) (defining “appealable,” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”); ORS 138.”
State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 373 Or. 816 (Or. 2025).
“”); ORS 138.005(5) (b) (defining “sentence” to include “imposition or execution of a sentence upon revocation of probation”).”
Perkins v. Fhuere, 374 Or. 575 (Or. 2025).
“13 Our conclusion that relator, in challenging the lawfulness of his convic- tion, is not also challenging his sentence, is consistent with a related statute, ORS 138.005(5), which defines “sentence” to mean “all legal consequences estab- lished or imposed by the trial court…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.005(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
“115 (governing review- ability in state’s appeals); see also ORS 138.005(2) (defining “appealable,” to mean, “in reference to a judgment or order rendered by a trial court, that the judgment or order is, by law, subject to appeal by a party”); ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.005(5)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“585(2)(c) (stating that certain crimes will be treated as felonies unless, upon revocation of probation, “the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment other than to the legal and physical custody of the Department of Corrections”).”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“585(2)(c) (stating that certain crimes will be treated as felonies unless, upon revocation of probation, “the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment other than to the legal and physical custody of the Department of Corrections”).”
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.