STATE v. RODRIGUEZ (2026)

Defendant appeals from an order revoking probation on the basis that defendant violated the condition that he “obey all laws” when he was found in possession of drug paraphernalia in Idaho, in violation of Idaho law. On appeal, he argues that the general condition of probation requiring probationers to “[o]bey all laws, municipal, county, state and federal, and in circumstances in which state and federal law conflict, obey state law,” ORS 137.540(1)(h), does not require people serving probation in Oregon to obey the laws of other states that conflict with Oregon law. Because defendant did not preserve his claim of error and did not request plain error review, we do not reach the asserted error and affirm.¹

At the probation revocation hearing, defendant argued that he did not fail to “obey all laws,” for purposes of probation, because the Idaho charges were dismissed and the state failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated Idaho law. On appeal, however, defendant advances an argument that the legislature did not intend that provision to reach out-of-state laws that conflict with Oregon laws. That is, defendant's argument below was to the sufficiency of the evidence for a finding that he violated the “obey all laws” provision; on appeal, he raises an issue of statutory interpretation regarding the scope of that provision. The trial court had no opportunity to consider that argument in the first instance. See State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 343, 15 P3d 22 (2000) (to preserve a claim of error for review, a party must “provide the trial court with an explanation of his or her objection that is specific enough to ensure that the court can identify its alleged error with enough clarity to permit it to consider and correct the error immediately”).

Defendant has not requested plain error review. Where a party has not requested plain-error review, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to consider the error on that basis alone. ORAP 5.45(7) (“The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should consider the error.”); State v. Atwood, 332 Or App 495, 498 n 2, 549 P3d 51 (2024) (“[W]e normally will not exercise [our] discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain-error review and concomitant plain-error arguments.”).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This is an appeal from a probation violation proceeding involving two cases—22CR29020 and 22CR58330—consolidated on appeal. Defendant's challenge relates only to 22CR58330, and he does not raise any challenges in Case No. 22CR29020; we therefore affirm both judgments.

EGAN, P. J.