State v. Hardges, 432 P.3d 268

Defendant convicted of public indecency, possession of methamphetamine, and harassment; sentenced to probation with standard ORS 137.540(1) conditions.
Probation officer prepared an "action plan" requiring defendant to stay nightly at the Medford Building and follow its curfew and rules; defendant moved in but later violated curfew and rules and was discharged.
State moved to revoke probation alleging (1) failure to "report as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer" (ORS 137.540(1)(m)) by violating the action plan, and (2) use of controlled substances (ORS 137.540(1)(b)).
Trial court found defendant willfully violated probation (both allegations), revoked probation, and sentenced defendant to prison plus post‑prison supervision.
On appeal, defendant argued the probation officer lacked authority under ORS 137.540(1)(m) to impose action‑plan requirements unrelated to reporting; the court considered whether the Medford Building requirement was enforceable under the "abide by the direction" clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ORS 137.540(1)(m)'s phrase "abide by the direction of the supervising officer" permits probation officers to impose and the court to enforce action‑plan conditions unrelated to reporting	The state argued that an officer may direct where and on what terms a probationer stays (e.g., transitional housing) because such directions facilitate reporting and fall within officer duties	Defendant argued that (m) only authorizes directions directly related to reporting; other conditions require court approval under ORS 137.540(9)	Held that (m) is limited: a probationer violates "abide by the direction" only when the officer's direction relates to the reporting requirement; the Medford Building requirement was not sufficiently related and thus not enforceable under (m)
Whether the error was harmless given the separate allegation of drug use	State argued the court could rely on other proved violations (drug use) to uphold revocation	Defendant argued revocation was partially based on an invalid ground and the trial court might have relied on that ground	Court reversed and remanded so trial court can reconsider revocation based on the valid drug‑use allegation alone

State v. Rivera‑Waddle, 279 Or. App. 274, 379 P.3d 820 (Or. App. 2016) (probation officer may not impose conditions the sentencing court did not order; revocation based on such a condition is erroneous)
State v. K. J. B., 362 Or. 777, 416 P.3d 291 (Or. 2018) (party asserting mootness bears burden to show lack of practical effect)
State v. Stroud, 293 Or. App. 314, 428 P.3d 949 (Or. App. 2018) (sufficiency of proof for probation violation is a legal question reviewed de novo)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009) (statutory interpretation methodology: examine text and context)
Goodwin v. Kingsmen Plastering, Inc., 359 Or. 694, 375 P.3d 463 (Or. 2016) (words in a statute may be clarified by reference to accompanying words)
State v. Laizure, 246 Or. App. 747, 268 P.3d 680 (Or. App. 2011) (court may modify or extend probation without first finding a violation)
State v. Mayes, 220 Or. App. 385, 186 P.3d 293 (Or. App. 2008) (interpretation should avoid defeating statute's purpose)