State v. Denson
280 Or. App. 225
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of identity theft and one count of aggravated theft; at initial sentencing the trial court found ORS 137.717(1) (RPO) applied but entered downward dispositional departures to probation and upward durational departures, listing only sentencing-guidelines grid blocks (2‑E for identity theft; 5‑E for aggravated theft) in the judgments.
- The judgments did not cite ORS 137.717(1) or otherwise state the convictions were RPO-based.
- Defendant later admitted violating probation. At revocation the trial court (the same judge) imposed RPO statutory presumptive prison terms (13 months for each identity theft; 19 months for aggravated theft) and post‑prison supervision.
- Defendant argued the court was limited on revocation to sanctions that flow from the grid blocks actually recited in the judgments, not from statutory RPO terms omitted from the judgments.
- The State argued the RPO sanction was proper (and alternatively that the sanction is unreviewable under ORS 138.222 because it is a "presumptive sentence") and that the judgment’s failure to cite ORS 137.717(1) was not dispositive.
- The appellate court held the claim was reviewable and reversed: the judgment controls what sanctions are available on revocation, so the court erred by imposing RPO sentences not reflected in the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation‑revocation sanction is unreviewable under ORS 138.222(2)(a) as a presumptive sentence | The State: RPO sentences are statutory "presumptive" sentences and thus fall within ORS 138.222(2)(a) so appellate review is barred | Defendant: The sanction does not fall within the sentencing‑guidelines presumptive grid range and is reviewable | Court: Reviewable — ORS 138.222(2)(a) bars review only of guidelines‑grid presumptive sentences; statutory presumptives are not covered (State v. Althouse controls) |
| Whether the trial court could impose RPO statutory presumptive prison terms on revocation despite the judgment listing only guidelines grid blocks and not citing ORS 137.717(1) | The State: Because RPO applied at original sentencing, the court could impose RPO sanctions on revocation regardless of omission from the judgment | Defendant: The judgment’s explicit grid‑block designations control and limit available revocation sanctions; omission of ORS 137.717(1) precludes imposing RPO terms | Court: Held for defendant — the judgment controls; trial court erred by imposing RPO sentences not reflected in the judgment (following Hoffmeister and Bolf) |
| Scope of OAR 213‑010‑0002 sanctions — whether they track the judgment or the actual sentencing circumstances | The State: OAR rule authorizes the maximum presumptive prison term that could have been imposed initially, which includes statutory presumptives like RPO | Defendant: OAR must be read to limit revocation sanctions to the presumptive corresponding to the grid block shown in the judgment | Court: OAR 213‑010‑0002 limits sanctions to those flowing from the grid block stated in the judgment; statute’s origin (statutory vs guideline) does not override the judgment |
| Whether prior case law requires reading the judgment as controlling even when parties concede sentencing exposure | The State: Prior concessions and record showing RPO at original sentencing should allow RPO sanctions | Defendant: Precedent requires the judgment’s terms to define available revocation sanctions regardless of concessions | Court: Agreed with defendant — Hoffmeister and Bolf make the judgment the controlling document for revocation sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Althouse, 359 Or 668 (determines ORS 138.222(2)(a) bars review only of sentencing‑guidelines grid presumptive sentences)
- State v. Hoffmeister, 164 Or App 192 (judgment’s grid block controls sanctions available on revocation)
- State v. Bolf, 217 Or App 606 (reinforces that the judgment, not sentencing circumstances, defines revocation sanctions)
- State v. Templeton, 275 Or App 69 (standard of review for legal questions about probation revocation sanctions)
- State v. Webster, 280 Or App 217 (applies Althouse distinction regarding reviewability)