State v. Neill

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• claim that stipu- lated revocation sentence exceeded the maximum allowed sentence was unreviewable under ORS 138.105(9)
• “because defendant stipulated to the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes our review”
• “because defendant stipulated to the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes our review”
• “because defendant stipulated to the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes our review”
• “because defendant stipulated to the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes our review”
• “because defendant stipulated to the probation revocation sentence, ORS 138.105(9) precludes our review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Kephart
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1994-12-16· cited 54×
• State v. Colgrove
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2022-12-01· cited 35×
• State v. Rusen
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2022-05-12· cited 28×
• State v. Davis-McCoy
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2019-10-30· cited 26×
• State v. Silsby
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-11-09· cited 23×
• State v. Thomas
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2021-06-23· cited 2×