State v. Bell

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 01-21-2016
  • Case #: A156129
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J., for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 137.540(2), a trial court may impose special conditions of probation that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction, as long as those conditions are not more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation.

Defendant pled guilty to three counts of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055, two counts of first-degree official misconduct, ORS 162.415, and two counts of tamper with physical evidence, ORS 162.295. On appeal, Defendant challenged two special conditions of her probation imposed by the trial court under ORS 137.540(2): (1) a restriction prohibiting Defendant from spending more than $250 dollars on non-ordinary household items without permission, and (2) a restriction prohibiting Defendant from traveling outside of Lincoln County without permission. Under ORS 137.540(2), a trial court may impose special conditions of probation that are, inter alia, reasonably related to the crime of conviction (emphasis in original). However, a special probation condition that is more restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals of probation are invalid. The Court found that the first special condition was reasonably related to Defendant’s gambling addiction and ability to pay restitution, but the geographic restriction was both overbroad and failed the reasonably related standard of achieving the goals of probation. Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search