State v. Berglund, 311 Or. App. 424

Defendant pleaded guilty to DUII in June 2012; diversion was revoked after a fatal September 2012 crash, and the court imposed a two‑year probation in June 2013 (probation would expire June 2015).
In March 2014 the court issued a probation‑violation warrant (and supporting affidavit) alleging a violation (pleading guilty to manslaughter); the revocation hearing was repeatedly continued.
After probation expired, the state sought and the court allowed an amended affidavit (filed March 2017) adding six additional alleged violations that occurred during the original probationary term.
At the June 2017 hearing the state withdrew the original manslaughter allegation; the court found two violations from the amended affidavit (failure to complete evaluation/treatment and leaving Oregon without permission), revoked probation, and imposed a six‑month jail sanction.
On appeal the court held that the trial court erred by considering and sanctioning violations alleged for the first time after the probation period ended; authority to adjudicate retained violations is limited to those charged during the probation period. Case reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sentencing court may revoke probation based on violations first alleged after the probationary period when revocation proceedings were initially commenced during probation	Filing a timely revocation proceeding tolls/permits later supplementation; court retained authority to sanction probationer for violations from the original probationary period	Court’s retained authority is limited to violations charged during the probation period; new allegations filed after expiration are untimely and unauthorized	Reversed: court’s retained authority is confined to violations charged during the probation period (initiated by warrant/affidavit); post‑expiration added claims may not be the basis for revocation
Whether amended allegations filed after probation "relate back" to the original warrant/affidavit	Amended allegations relate back (or are permitted because proceedings were initiated timely)	Relation‑back does not occur absent express statutory authorization; statutes limit charges to those filed during probation	Rejected relation‑back: statutes do not imply relation‑back; relation‑back requires explicit authorization

State v. Ludwig, 218 Or 483 (Or. 1959) (properly initiated revocation proceedings before probation expires preserve authority to adjudicate afterwards)
State v. Vanlieu, 251 Or App 361 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (retained authority after initiation is limited to the charged violation; extending probation requires explicit judicial action)
State v. Miller, 224 Or App 642 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (initiating revocation before expiration preserves court’s authority to adjudicate charged violations later)
State v. O’Neal, 24 Or App 423 (Or. Ct. App. 1976) (court lacks authority to revoke for probation‑period conduct when proceedings were not initiated before probation expired)
State v. Granberry, 260 Or App 15 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory inquiry centers on a court’s authority, not "jurisdiction," to conduct post‑term adjudication)
State v. Donovan, 305 Or 332 (Or. 1988) (probation revocation hearings are summary in nature and courts have broad discretion over their scope)