Full Opinion

108 October 21, 2026 No. 1021 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARK ALLEN STRUTTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Polk County Circuit Court 23CR22195; A185705 Rafael A. Caso, Judge. Submitted June 18, 2026. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Daniel C. Bennett, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 108 (2026) 109 KAMINS, J. Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree sex abuse, ORS 163.427, follow- ing a no-contest plea. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred by considering the timing of defendant’s plea in its sentencing decision. Because defendant did not raise that argument below and the trial court’s decision does not amount to plain error, we affirm. When imposing the sentence, the trial court observed that the case was over a year old and defendant had not taken “early accountability.” On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by not sentencing him based “solely on the facts of his case and his personal history.” See State v. Smith, 52 Or App 681, 684, 629 P2d 420 (1981) (improper for a sentencing court to “reserve[ ] favored treatment ‘for people who own up to their misdeeds,’ i.e., plead guilty”). However, defendant did not make that argument below, nor does he now request plain error review. See ORAP 5.45(7) (“The court may decline to exercise its discretion to consider plain error absent a request explaining the reasons that the court should consider the error.”); State v. Atwood, 332 Or App 495, 498 n 2, 549 P3d 51 (2024) (“[W]e normally will not exercise [our] discretion in the absence of an explicit request for plain- error review and concomitant plain-error arguments.”). In any event, any error is not plain. The prosecu- tor argued that the fact that defendant did not enter a plea until the “eleventh hour” reflected a lack of accountability. In response, defense counsel offered reasons for that timing and also pointed out that defendant did eventually enter a plea in order to spare the parties a trial. Although the trial court observed, on the heels of that argument, that defen- dant had not taken “early accountability,” it is not appar- ent on the face of the record that the trial court relied on that consideration in imposing the sentence. See State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629, 317 P3d 889 (2013) (for error to be “plain,” the legal point must be obvious and not reason- ably in dispute, and the error must be apparent on the record without our having to choose among competing inferences). Affirmed.