State v. Buckles
Case # A152647
Full Text of Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A152647.pdf
Defendant Buckles pleaded guilty to and was convicted of misdemeanor DUII. Buckles had two prior DUII convictions, and because she had a total of three DUII convictions, the court was required to impose a lifetime suspension of Buckles’ driving privileges pursuant to ORS 813.400(2) and ORS 809.235(1)(b). Defendant challenged the constitutionality of the lifetime suspension. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Buckles’ constitutional claim was not appealable under ORS 138.050. The State relied on the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of that statute in State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 261 P3d 1234 (2011). The Appellate Commissioner agreed with the State and dismissed the appeal. Buckles petitioned for reconsideration, and the Appellate Commissioner vacated the dismissal and referred the issue to the panel considering Buckles’ appeal on the merits. The Court of Appeals now considers the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
The Court of Appeals first notes that criminal defendants do not have an inherent right to appellate court review; the right to appeal is wholly statutory and any appeal must be supported by some statutory provision. Buckles argues that her claim is appealable under ORS 138.050(1)(a). She contends that she has made a colorable showing that the lifetime suspension of her driving privileges exceeds the maximum allowable by law. In essence, Buckles argues that the statute requiring the lifetime suspension is unconstitutional. The State argues that ORS 138.050(1)(a) challenges must be based on statutory and not constitutional issues. The Court of Appeals agrees with the State.
The Court of Appeals recalls its opinion in State v. Taylor, 266 Or App 813, ___ P3d ___ (2014), where it explained ORS 138.050(1)(a) “does not encompass claims brought under the Oregon or United States constitutions, and ORS 138.050(1)(b) only encompasses the constitutional claim that a disposition is cruel and unusual.”
Here, Buckles does not contend that her appeal is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual under ORS 138.050(1)(b), nor does she argue that the trial court violated the statute governing the suspension. Rather, she claims that the statute permitting the suspension is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. As such, the Court of Appeals determines that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and grants the State’s motion to dismiss. The appeal is dismissed.