State v. Richards

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 03-23-2016
  • Case #: A155895
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: De Muniz, S.J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; DeHoog, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 137.593(3), a trial court may not revoke a criminal defendant’s probation if the defendant has already completed a structured, intermediate probation sanction for the same conduct. However, if the defendant serves a structured, intermediate imposed for a violation of conditions of post-prison supervision, the court retains authority to revoke the defendant’s probation for that same conduct.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s revocation of his probation and subsequent imposition of a sanction of 17 months in prison and three-years’ post-prison supervision, arguing that the trial court erred by punishing him twice for a single act. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft and one count of burglary, and was sentenced to three years’ probation on each charge. Defendant violated the conditions of his probation, and was sentenced to 60 days in jail and 12 months’ post-prison supervision. Later, Defendant again violated the conditions of his post-prison supervision, and was jailed for 3 days. For this same conduct, the trial court revoked his probation and imposed a sanction. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court’s revocation violated ORS 137.593(3), arguing that the trial court lacked authority to revoke Defendant’s probation when he had already completed a “structured, intermediate sanction” of 3 days in jail. The Court reviewed the text and context of ORS 137.593(3), and in agreeing with the State, determined that only the administrative sanctions for violations of probation affect the trial court’s authority to revoke probation entirely, whereas in this case, Defendant’s 3-day jail sentence was imposed for a violation of his post-prison supervision. Affirmed.

Advanced Search