Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535 (2026)

Appeals generally

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

      147.535 Appeals generally. (1)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, appellate review of an order issued under ORS 147.515, 147.520 or 147.530 shall be solely as provided in this section and ORS 147.537, 147.539 and 147.542.

      (b) A defendant who seeks to appeal an order issued under ORS 147.515, 147.520 or 147.530 must do so in the manner provided for appeals in ORS chapter 138. The provisions of this section and ORS 147.537, 147.539 and 147.542 do not apply to an appeal under ORS chapter 138.

      (c) Nothing in ORS 147.500 to 147.550 affects the ability of a defendant to petition for a writ of mandamus.

      (2) Jurisdiction for appellate review of an order issued under ORS 147.515, 147.520 or 147.530 is vested originally and exclusively in the Supreme Court.

      (3) Subject to ORS 147.542, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to the order for which appellate review is sought and the trial court retains jurisdiction over all other matters in the criminal proceeding.

      (4) Appellate review of an order issued under ORS 147.515, 147.520 or 147.530 shall be as provided in:

      (a) ORS 147.537 if the order was issued under ORS 147.520 or 147.530 in a criminal proceeding in which a defendant is charged with a felony or a person Class A misdemeanor, as that term is defined by rule of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, and the order arises from a motion or claim alleging a violation that occurred prior to the pronouncement in open court of the sentence or disposition after a plea, admission or trial in the criminal proceeding.

      (b) ORS 147.539 in all appeals arising under ORS 147.500 to 147.550 except those described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.

      (5) The victim, the state or any person against whom relief was ordered has standing to seek appellate review of an order unless, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the claim or motion that resulted in the order or a related claim or motion, the person or party seeking appellate review did none of the following:

      (a) Inform the court of a claim.

      (b) File a response under ORS 147.517 (4).

      (c) File a motion under ORS 147.522.

      (d) Participate in a hearing under ORS 147.530.

      (6) Pursuant to ORS 180.060, the Attorney General shall appear for the state in all appeals under this section and ORS 147.537, 147.539 and 147.542. [2009 c.178 §13; 2013 c.224 §3]

 

      Note: See note under 147.500.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case: State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013).
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). · cites it 10× “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011). · cites it 2× “530(5) (obliging court to issue remedial order on victim’s successful constitutional claim within seven days of date of show cause order); ORS 147.535(2) (appellate jurisdiction “vested originally and *399 exclusively in the Supreme Court”); ORS 147.”
State v. Bray, 291 P.3d 727 (Or. 2012). · cites it 7× “ORS 147.535 prescribes the appropriate avenue to be used to obtain review in a particular case.”
State v. Gallegos, 460 P.3d 529 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539.” State v.”
State v. Bray, 279 P.3d 216 (Or. 2012). · cites it 6× “"The victim, the prosecuting attorney or any person against 6 whom relief was ordered" may appeal.”
State v. Ramos, 340 P.3d 703 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “106 now requires restitution “in full” of a victim’s damages because the legislature has limited that court’s review of crime *177 victims’ claims under ORS 147.535(3) to considering whether the trial court committed constitutional error); State v.”
State v. Ball, 416 P.3d 301 (Or. 2018). · cites it 4× “The trial court denied the claim, and appellant brought this appeal, pursuant to ORS 147.535. *303 This case requires us to determine the scope of a crime victim's constitutional right to be heard during a sentencing hearing.”
State Ex Rel. Walraven v. Dep't of Corr., 362 P.3d 1163 (Or. 2015). “Similarly, ORS 147.535 grants the state standing to appeal an order in a victims’ rights case, and ORS 147.”
State v. Halfmoon, 501 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “That mechanism requires victims to “inform the court within 30 days of the date the victim knew or reasonably should have known” that one or more of their rights were violated.”
State ex rel Walraven v. Dept. of Corr. (Or. 2015). “650 permits the state to appeal a judgment in a post-conviction proceed- ing, and ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Bray, 279 P.3d 216 (Or. 2012). “"The victim, the prosecuting attorney or any person against 6 whom relief was ordered" may appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(2) — 3 cases
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011). “530(5) (obliging court to issue remedial order on victim’s successful constitutional claim within seven days of date of show cause order); ORS 147.535(2) (appellate jurisdiction “vested originally and *399 exclusively in the Supreme Court”); ORS 147.”
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
State v. Halfmoon, 501 P.3d 1126 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “That mechanism requires victims to “inform the court within 30 days of the date the victim knew or reasonably should have known” that one or more of their rights were violated.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(3) — 3 cases
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
State v. Ramos, 340 P.3d 703 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “106 now requires restitution “in full” of a victim’s damages because the legislature has limited that court’s review of crime *177 victims’ claims under ORS 147.535(3) to considering whether the trial court committed constitutional error); State v.”
State v. Ball, 416 P.3d 301 (Or. 2018). “The trial court denied the claim, and appellant brought this appeal, pursuant to ORS 147.535. *303 This case requires us to determine the scope of a crime victim's constitutional right to be heard during a sentencing hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(4) — 2 cases
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
State v. Bray, 291 P.3d 727 (Or. 2012). “ORS 147.535 prescribes the appropriate avenue to be used to obtain review in a particular case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(4)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011). “530(5) (obliging court to issue remedial order on victim’s successful constitutional claim within seven days of date of show cause order); ORS 147.535(2) (appellate jurisdiction “vested originally and *399 exclusively in the Supreme Court”); ORS 147.”
State v. Bray, 291 P.3d 727 (Or. 2012). “ORS 147.535 prescribes the appropriate avenue to be used to obtain review in a particular case.”
State v. Ball, 416 P.3d 301 (Or. 2018). “The trial court denied the claim, and appellant brought this appeal, pursuant to ORS 147.535. *303 This case requires us to determine the scope of a crime victim's constitutional right to be heard during a sentencing hearing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(4)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
State v. Bray, 291 P.3d 727 (Or. 2012). “ORS 147.535 prescribes the appropriate avenue to be used to obtain review in a particular case.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(5) — 2 cases
State v. Bray, 291 P.3d 727 (Or. 2012). “ORS 147.535 prescribes the appropriate avenue to be used to obtain review in a particular case.”
State v. Bray, 279 P.3d 216 (Or. 2012). “"The victim, the prosecuting attorney or any person against 6 whom relief was ordered" may appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Bray, 279 P.3d 216 (Or. 2012). “"The victim, the prosecuting attorney or any person against 6 whom relief was ordered" may appeal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 147.535(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Algeo, 311 P.3d 865 (Or. 2013). “A party not satisfied with the court’s order may seek review in this court pursuant to ORS 147.535, 147.537, and 147.539. In this case, petitioner and the trial court followed the statutory procedures that we have outlined.”
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.