State v. Estey

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 12-14-2011
  • Case #: A144297
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, C.J. for the Court; & Gillette, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In State v. Johnson the Court of Appeals held that the common law removed jurisdiction from the trial court once a defendant began serving a valid sentence. However, ORS 138.083 provides several exception to the common law rule, such as in cases of erroneous terms, factual errors, arithmetic errors, or clerical errors.

Defendant was convicted of 20 counts first-degree sexual abuse, for which the trial court ordered defendant serve 225 months consecutively. However, the court’s written judgment only stated 150 months. After defendant served 145 months in jail, the state moved to amend his sentence to reflect the 225-month total. Defendant objected on the grounds that the state's request violated the “long-standing principle” of finality in final judgments and stands contrary to the Court of Appeals recent decision in State v. Johnson. In Riley, the Court held that common law rule removed jurisdiction from the trial court once a defendant began serving a valid sentence. In this case, the Court noted that the trial court was allowed to amend the sentence because ORS 138.083 provided an exception to the common law for erroneous terms, factual errors, arithmetic errors, or clerical errors. Unlike Johnson, the factual circumstances of this case fell under a clear exception as outlined under ORS 138.083. Affirmed.

Advanced Search