State v. Granberry
260 Or. App. 15
| Or. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of marijuana and entered a conditional-discharge agreement under ORS 475.245; the court deferred judgment and placed her on two years’ probation.
- Probation conditions included paying court-ordered financial obligations, not possessing controlled substances without a prescription, and obeying laws.
- Defendant’s probation term expired on February 6, 2009; the state did not initiate any violation proceedings before that date.
- After expiration, the state filed a motion (March 2009) seeking an order to show cause and an adjudication of guilt based on alleged probation violations (nonpayment and later convictions).
- The trial court held that, because the state did not commence violation proceedings during the probationary period, it lacked authority to adjudicate guilt after probation expired and dismissed the charge; the state appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may adjudicate guilt for violation of probation imposed under ORS 475.245 after the probation term has expired when the state did not initiate violation proceedings during the term | Conditional-discharge probation differs from sentenced probation; no judgment exists, so court retains authority until it either adjudicates guilt or dismisses — state can seek violation after expiration | "Probation" in ORS 475.245 imports ordinary probation rules; revocation/violation proceedings must be initiated during the probationary term; failure to do so bars later adjudication | Held for defendant: court lacked authority to enter conviction after probation expired because state did not initiate violation proceedings during the probationary period |
| Who bears the burden to prompt termination (dismissal) under ORS 475.245 after probation expires | Court’s dismissal is conditioned on defendant proving fulfillment of probation terms; state may pursue violations indefinitely until defendant proves entitlement to discharge | Where state fails to initiate violation proceedings before expiration, the defendant is entitled to discharge and the court must dismiss | Held for defendant: dismissal follows successful completion — i.e., completion without timely state action — and court is not powerless to act absent a defendant’s affirmative showing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ludwig, 218 Or. 483 (Oregon Supreme Court) (court must issue show-cause/warrant during probationary period to retain authority to revoke)
- State v. O’Neal, 24 Or. App. 423 (Or. Ct. App.) (court lacks authority to revoke probation when revocation proceedings are not initiated before expiration)
- State v. Miller, 224 Or. App. 642 (Or. Ct. App.) (reaffirming that revocation proceedings must be initiated before probation term expires)