State v. Shumate

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-02-2014
  • Case #: A149886
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J., for the court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Remand denied where defendant failed to identify flaws in original sentencing proceeding. For a court order to be appealable, it must resolve all charges brought in the case.

Defendant was sentenced to prison by way of two separate cases. After 25 years in prison, the Oregon Department of Corrections declined to include one of defendant’s sentences when it calculated defendant’s overall prison term. Consequently, the state requested a new judgment generally reflecting the sentencing order that was not included. The trial court did so, and defendant appealed that order. The Court of Appeals was faced with several questions: (1) whether the trial court’s sentencing order in 1987 was a final judgment; (2) whether the trial court had authority to enter a new judgment in 2011 that generally reflected the prior sentencing order; (3) whether defendant could appeal that judgment; and (4) whether defendant could establish that the judgment should be remanded for resentencing. Under the law at the time, a document announcing a conviction and sentence in a criminal case “qualified as an appealable judgment only if it was final, that is, if it fully resolved all charges in the case.” The order in defendant’s case only resolved two of three counts, and thus, it was not a final, appealable judgment. Because the 1987 order was not a final judgment, the 2011 judgment could not have amended a previous judgment. Instead, the 2011 judgment was the only judgment entered in defendant’s case. However, defendant failed to identify flaws in the original sentencing proceeding nor any circumstances suggesting his sentence was unjustified. Because defendant did not claim that the original trial court erred in its sentencing determination, the Court of Appeals did not find justice required a remand for resentencing. The fact that defendant made no effort to challenge his sentence before 2011 further supported the Court’s view. Affirmed.

Advanced Search