State v. Goin

No. 588 August 28, 2024 497

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTIAN GOIN,

aka Christian Joseph Goin,

Defendant-Appellant.

Marion County Circuit Court

21CR49716; A181383

James C. Edmonds, Judge.

Submitted July 12, 2024.

Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate

Section, and Marc Brown, Senior Deputy Defender, Oregon

Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.

Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, waived

appearance for respondent.

Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.

LAGESEN, C. J.

Affirmed.

498 State v. Goin

LAGESEN, C. J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for

escape in the first degree, ORS 162.165, robbery in the first

degree, ORS 164.415, kidnapping in the second degree, ORS

163.225, and possession of a weapon by an inmate, ORS

166.275. Defendant pleaded guilty to those charges. The

trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 95 months in

prison. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant

to ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 311 Or 434, 814 P2d 1069

(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP

5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1

Having reviewed the record, we note that, before

entering his plea, defendant moved to remand the case to

juvenile court on the ground that the juvenile court had

exclusive jurisdiction because defendant was under the age

of 18 when he escaped from MacLaren Youth Correctional

Facility. Defendant was still under 18 when he was arrested

and returned to that facility. However, by the time the

state charged defendant, he had turned 18. After holding

a hearing on the motion, the trial court ruled that it had

jurisdiction because defendant was returned to MacLaren

on his original charges, and he was not in “protective cus-

tody” on the new charges at that time. See Brown v. Zenon,

133 Or App 291, 295, 891 P2d 666 (1995) (“[J]urisdiction

attaches when a child is taken into protective custody. ORS

419B.157; ORS 419C.094. If a child is not taken into pro-

tective custody, jurisdiction attaches when other steps are

taken to initiate judicial proceedings.”).

In 1997, ORS 419C.094 was amended to delete the

word “protective.” Or Laws 1997, ch 727, § 4. ORS 419C.094

now provides, in part, that “the jurisdiction of the juvenile

court of the county in which a youth is taken into custody

* * * shall attach from the time the youth is taken into cus-

tody.” Because the statute no longer refers to protective cus-

tody, there are reasons to question the trial court’s ruling

denying the motion to remand the case to juvenile court.

1

As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge

panel. See, e.g., State v. Yother, 310 Or App 563, 484 P3d 1098 (2021) (deciding

matter submitted through Balfour process by two-judge panel); Ballinger v.

Nooth, 254 Or App 402, 295 P3d 115 (2012), rev den, 353 Or 747 (2013) (same).

Cite as 334 Or App 497 (2024) 499

Whether or not he was taken into protective custody before

he turned 18, the statute now appears to provide that juve-

nile court jurisdiction attaches in delinquency cases when

the youth is taken into custody.

However, after the ruling denying the remand,

defendant pleaded guilty to four charges associated with

his escape from MacLaren. Defendant did not enter a condi-

tional plea pursuant to ORS 135.335(3) reserving his right

to challenge the trial court’s ruling. Instead, in his petition

to enter his pleas, defendant indicated that he understood

that he was giving up all rights of appeal to this court, other

than certain challenges to his sentence. As a result, we have

no authority to reach the question of whether the trial court

erred in denying the motion to remand. See ORS 138.105(5)

(“The appellate court has no authority to review the validity

of the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, or a conviction

based on the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest[.]”); see

also State v. Belzons, 140 Or App 198, 200-01, 915 P2d 428

(1996), rev den, 324 Or 513 (1997) (defendant who pleaded no

contest in district court could not, on appeal, challenge the

district court’s alleged lack of jurisdiction).

Although we have no authority to reach the issue,

defendant may not be without recourse to raise the issue of

whether the 1997 statutory amendments altered the juris-

dictional analysis in Brown, on which the trial court relied.

See ORS 138.530.

Affirmed.