State v. Hurita

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 01-21-2016
  • Case #: A155875
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Schuman, P.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A condition of probation that is not reasonably related to the trial court's goal, which is otherwise achieved by another condition of probation, is unenforceable as overbroad.

Defendant sought modification of a condition of her probation imposed by the trial court after her conviction for misdemeanor stalking and second-degree criminal trespass. Over a several-year period, Defendant repeatedly telephoned a man she erroneously believed to be related to, and know the whereabouts of, another man who was the target of her obsession. Consequently, the calls escalated to Defendant showing up in person to the man's property, despite police intervention. After her conviction, the court instituted probation against Defendant, a condition of which prevented her from being "anywhere in Lincoln County North of Cape Foulweather." Defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the condition was overbroad and not reasonably related to the court's objective. The Court agreed, noting that the restriction would significantly hamper Defendant's travel and ability to live in Lincoln County, and further, that another condition of probation, a "no-contact" order with the victim, would adequately achieve the court's goals. Accordingly, the Court found the conditions of probation ot be overbroad and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search