State v. McFerrin

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 11-29-2017
  • Case #: A158880
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“[T]he sole criterion” under OAR 213-012-0040(2) for whether a court can impose consecutive incarceration sanctions is “whether there had been multiple probation violations.” State v. Newell, 238 Or. App. 385, 395 (2010).

Defendant appealed a sentencing court’s order revoking his probation and imposing 60 months of incarceration. Defendant assigned error the sentencing court imposing three consecutive incarceration sanctions for two separate supervision violations. On appeal, Defendant argues that OAR 213-012-0040(2)(b) states that “each consecutive sanction requires a ‘separate supervision violation.’” In the response, State argued that under this statute, the court had the authority to impose consecutive sentences because Defendant committed multiple supervisory violations. “[T]he sole criterion” under OAR 213-012-0040(2) for whether a court can impose consecutive incarceration sanctions is “whether there had been multiple probation violations.” State v. Newell, 238 Or. App. 385, 395 (2010). The Court of Appeals held that the sentencing court did not err by imposing three consecutive 20-month sentences because Defendant committed more than a single supervision violation. Affirmed.

Advanced Search