STATE v. VALENTI (2022)

Defendant, who was convicted of unlawful delivery of a marijuana item, ORS 475B.356, appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and imposing a stipulated sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. The judgment also included a post-prison supervision term of 36 months. Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court plainly erred in imposing the 60-month stipulated sentence. We reject that argument as unreviewable. State v. Davis-McCoy, 300 Or. App. 326, 454 P.3d 48 (2019). Defendant also argues that the trial court plainly erred in imposing the 36-month post-prison supervision term because that term, when added to the prison term, exceeds the maximum allowable sentence for the offense. See ORS 161.605 (describing maximum indeterminate sentences); OAR 213-005-0002(4) (“The term of post-prison supervision, when added to the prison term, shall not exceed the statutory maximum indeterminate sentence for the crime of conviction.”). The state concedes that the error in the post-prison supervision term constitutes plain error and agrees that the case should be remanded for resentencing. We accept that concession and, for the reasons set forth in State v. Cunningham, 299 Or. App. 523, 525-26, 451 P.3d 268 (2019), exercise discretion to correct the error.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM