Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.225 (2026)

Summary affirmation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      138.225 Summary affirmation. In reviewing the judgment of any court under ORS 138.010 to 138.310, the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on the motion of the respondent, may summarily affirm, without oral argument, the judgment after submission of the appellant’s brief and without submission of the respondent’s brief if the court finds that no substantial question of law is presented by the appeal. Notwithstanding ORS 2.570, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals may deny or, if the petitioner does not oppose the motion, grant a respondent’s motion for summary affirmation. A dismissal of appeal under this section constitutes a decision upon the merits of the appeal. [1995 c.295 §2]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2003–2018 · leading case: Rodriguez v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 67 P.3d 970 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rodriguez v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 67 P.3d 970 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “712 (relating to habeas corpus cases), ORS 138.225 (relating to criminal cases), and ORS 138.”
State v. Ibarra, 427 P.3d 1127 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “*1128 *269 This matter comes before the court on a petition to reconsider an order of the Appellate Commissioner granting the state's motion for summary affirmance pursuant to ORS 138.225. The question presented is who decides such a motion when the state reports in the motion…”
Austin v. Premo, 380 P.3d 1253 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “712 (on appeal in habeas corpus cases); ORS 138.225 (on appeal in criminal cases), and ORS 138.”
State v. Casas, 433 P.3d 785 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “The state moves pursuant to ORS 138.225 for summary affirmance on the ground that the appeal does not present a substantial question of law.”
State v. Baskette, 295 P.3d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Because we remand the cases for resentencing, ORS 138.225(5)(a), we need not address whether defendant was required to preserve his argument as to the count in which the court did not indicate that defendant would be eligible for earned time or as to eligibility for anything…”
State v. Santos, 201 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “225(4)(b) provides that, in any appeal, the reviewing court may review a claim that "[t]he sentencing court erred in ranking the crime seriousness classification of the current crime or in determining the appropriate classification of a prior conviction or juvenile adjudication…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.225(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. Santos, 201 P.3d 285 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “225(4)(b) provides that, in any appeal, the reviewing court may review a claim that "[t]he sentencing court erred in ranking the crime seriousness classification of the current crime or in determining the appropriate classification of a prior conviction or juvenile adjudication…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.225(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Baskette, 295 P.3d 177 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Because we remand the cases for resentencing, ORS 138.225(5)(a), we need not address whether defendant was required to preserve his argument as to the count in which the court did not indicate that defendant would be eligible for earned time or as to eligibility for anything…”
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.