State v. Pierce

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Bacchus

    331 Or. App. 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2024)

    We agree with the state's argument. See, e.g., State v. Pierce, 272 Or.App. 762, 765, 358 P.3d 324, rev den, 358 Or. 449 (2015) (explaining that "we generally do not review unpreserved claims of error challenging the adequacy of the findings required by ORS 137.750").

  2. State v. Berger

    284 Or. App. 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that the statutory scheme that governs earned-time credits constitutes "a sentence reduction program"

    Id . at 343, 134 P.3d 1074 (footnote omitted). "Included among such programs * * * [is] " ‘earned-time’ sentence reduction, ORS 421.121 [.]" Id . at 343 n. 4, 134 P.3d 1074 ; see also State v. Pierce , 272 Or.App. 762, 763, 358 P.3d 324, rev. den. , 358 Or. 449, 366 P.3d 719 (2015) (" ‘earned time’ is a sentence reduction program or time credit under ORS 421.121"); State v. Ivie , 213 Or.App. 198, 200-01, 159 P.3d 1257 (2007) (discussing the legislative history of ORS 137.750 and noting that "earned time" is a sentence modification program). 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."