State v. Laizure

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
  • Date Filed: 12-07-2011
  • Case #: A143605
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Rosenblum, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A court may extend probation, even in the absence of evidence of a violation, if it finds that the purposes of the probation are not being served.

Defendant’s probation officer directed him to change residence, so he moved from an adult foster-care house to an apartment of his own. He was unable to receive mail at the new residence, so he continued to use his old address, but failed to report this to his probation officer. Defendant was then assigned a new probation officer, who had trouble contacting with defendant. Subsequently, the new officer reported to the state that defendant had violated his probation by changing residence without prior permission and failure to find gainful employment. The trial court extended defendant’s probation. On appeal, defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he had violated the conditions of his parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the record indicated that the trial court permissibly exercised its limited discretion, even if the evidence was insufficient. Affirmed.

Advanced Search