The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled on a case involving Dammien Charles Fowler, who appealed his conviction for attempted first-degree robbery and unlawful use of a weapon. The court's decision, filed on June 10, 2026, has significant implications for how plea agreements are understood and enforced in the state. The ruling affects Fowler, the legal system, and future defendants navigating plea deals.
Fowler's case began when he pleaded guilty to charges of attempted first-degree robbery and unlawful use of a weapon. The plea agreement included a recommended sentence from the district attorney, but Fowler later claimed that the trial court's imposed sentence was significantly longer than what was initially suggested. This led to his appeal, where he argued that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea before the court imposed a harsher sentence than expected.
The dispute centers around the interpretation of Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 135.390(5)(b), which requires that if a trial court finds an agreed disposition recommendation inappropriate, it must allow the defendant the chance to withdraw their plea. Fowler contended that the trial court violated this statute by not allowing him to withdraw his plea after imposing a sentence that was 40 months longer than the district attorney's recommendation.
The case reached the Court of Appeals after Fowler's conviction in the Clackamas County Circuit Court. His defense team, including Chief Defender Ernest G. Lannet and Deputy Public Defender Brett J. Allin, filed the appeal, arguing that the trial court's actions were improper. The state, represented by Attorney General Dan Rayfield and others, countered that Fowler's claims were unpreserved and incorrect.
In its ruling, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that Fowler could not demonstrate reversible error. The judges, including Judge Hellman, noted that Fowler's argument was not preserved because he did not object to the sentence at the time it was imposed. The court explained, “Even assuming that defendant’s argument is reviewable, we conclude that he cannot demonstrate reversible error because any error is not plain.”
The court further clarified that ORS 135.390(5) applies only when there is an agreed disposition recommendation for the sentence. In Fowler's case, the court found that there was no clear agreed recommendation between the defendant and the state. The plea agreement allowed for different recommendations from both sides, which the court stated distinguished Fowler's case from a previous ruling in State v. Craig, where the court had erred by not allowing a defendant to withdraw a plea.
As a result of the ruling, the court concluded that the record did not support Fowler's claim that he was entitled to withdraw his plea. The judges affirmed the trial court's judgment, solidifying the conviction and sentence of 130 months in prison for Fowler.
This ruling has important implications for defendants in Oregon. It clarifies how plea agreements should be interpreted and emphasizes the necessity for defendants to preserve their objections during sentencing. The decision may influence how future cases are handled, particularly regarding the enforcement of plea agreements and the rights of defendants to challenge their sentences.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Fowler will seek further legal recourse, such as an appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. Currently, there are no indications of related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling. However, the court's interpretation of plea agreements may prompt future defendants to carefully consider their options when entering guilty pleas.