Full Opinion

716 November 12, 2026 No. 1108 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).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. JENNIFER MARIE PETERSON, Defendant-Appellant. Lane County Circuit Court 23CR38812; A187991 Charles M. Zennaché, Judge. Submitted September 9, 2026. Andy Simrin and Andy Simrin PC filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Solicitor General, and Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Joyce, Presiding Judge, O’Connor, Judge, and DeVore, Senior Judge. JOYCE, P. J. Affirmed. Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 716 (2026) 717 JOYCE, P. J. Defendant pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII). As part of the negotiated settlement, both defendant and the state represented to the trial court that defendant would be subject to a permanent revocation of her driver’s license. Accordingly, the trial court entered a judgment convicting her of felony DUII and impos- ing a permanent revocation of her driver’s license. Over a year later, defendant filed a motion to correct the judgment. As relevant to this appeal, defendant argued that the judg- ment contained a clerical error, namely that defendant’s driv- er’s license was revoked for life. The trial court declined to remove the permanent revocation term, explaining, in part, that it was the intent of the parties and trial court at sentenc- ing that defendant’s driver’s license be permanently revoked; thus, the judgment correctly included that provision. Defendant appeals from the corrected judgment of conviction and a supplemental judgment converting her supervised probation to court probation. In a single assign- ment of error, she argues that the trial court erred when it failed to correct the erroneous permanent revocation term. The trial court correctly declined to delete the per- manent revocation provision. At defendant’s plea hearing, her attorney told the trial court about the negotiations with the state, including that “[t]his would be a lifetime driver’s license suspension.” At the sentencing hearing, the state repeated the negotiated terms, including a permanent revo- cation of defendant’s driver’s license. The trial court then imposed a sentence that included a permanent revoca- tion of defendant’s driver’s license. Because defendant was “actively instrumental in bringing about” the error that she now claims that the trial court committed when it refused to delete that permanent revocation term, we decline to review her claim on appeal. See State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210, 214, 203 P3d 274, rev den, 346 Or 590 (2009) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party who was actively instru- mental in bringing about an alleged error cannot be heard to complain, and the case ought not to be reversed because of it.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Affirmed.