State v. Brand

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 07-24-2013
  • Case #: A148891
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Wollheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under OAR 213-012-0040(2), the court is required to impose concurrent sanctions when the Defendant has committed a single probation violation.

Defendant appealed a judgment which revoked his probationary supervision and imposed consecutive incarceration sanctions. Defendant violated his probation by consuming alcohol. The lower court revoked Defendant's probation and imposed consecutive incarceration sanctions of 27 months and 29 months for counts 1 and 2. Defendant argued that the lower court could not impose consecutive sanctions because there was only one violation. The lower court rejected Defendant's argument because counts 1 and 2 were based on incidents involving two different minor victims. On appeal, Defendant maintained the same argument. The Court accepted Defendant's argument and held that since the lower court found that the Defendant only committed one single probation violation, OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires the court to impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search