If the claim is unreviewable under ORS 138.222(2)(a), an appellant cannot rely upon ORS 138.222(4)(a) as an exception to (2)(a) to establish reviewability. See State v. Casiano, 214 Or App 509, 515, 166 P3d 599 (2007) (holding that ORS 138.222(4)(a) is not an exception to ORS 138.222(2)(a)). There is no dispute that the trial court imposed concurrent, presumptive sentences for defendant's assault convictions, but we have construed ORS 138.222(2)(a) more narrowly than the state proposes.
In addition, a "bar to sentence modifications, such as an order by the trial court denying [a defendant] consideration under ORS 137.750 for such modifications, * * * deprives [a defendant] of eligibility for a sentence reduction of up to 20 percent under ORS 421.121, among other consequences." State v. Casiano , 214 Or.App. 509, 519, 166 P.3d 599 (2007) ; see also State v. Baskette , 254 Or.App. 751, 752-53, 295 P.3d 177 (2013) (trial court committed plain error by not making findings required under ORS 137.750 to deny defendant eligibility for "earned time").Furthermore, ORS 137.750(2) provides that "[t]he executing or releasing authority may consider the defendant for a program described in subsection (1) of this section only upon order of the sentencing court appearing in the judgment."