STATE v. RAMOS (2022)

This is a criminal appeal from judgments of convictions, and sentences imposed, as part of a global settlement agreement spanning several cases, Case Nos. 16CR64105, 19CR10795, and 19CR22431, as well as attendant probation violation allegations. We affirm.

In defendant's first assignment of error, she argues that the sentencing court plainly erred when, in Case No. 16CR64105, it ordered her to serve the 24-month sentence that it imposed on her unlawful use of a vehicle conviction, ORS 164.135, upon revocation of probation, consecutively to the sentences imposed in Case Nos. 19CR10795 and 19CR22431. In light of State v. Lane, 357 Or. 619, 355 P.3d 914 (2015), we are not convinced any error, if it exists, is obvious on the face of the record, as required under the first prong of Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 381-82, 823 P.2d 956 (1991).

In defendant's supplemental assignment of error, she raises a plain-error challenge to the trial court's imposition of probation revocation sanctions based on allegations made after the probation term has expired, pursuant to State v. Berglund, 311 Or. App. 424, 425, 491 P.3d 820 (2021). Even assuming there was legal error here under the first prong of Ailes, a point we do not decide, the presence of the global settlement agreement at play in this case persuades us that this is not an appropriate case in which to exercise our discretion under the second prong of Ailes.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM