State v. LaCoe, 323 Or. App. 74

Defendant was convicted in multiple cases of delivery of methamphetamine and felon in possession; sentenced to felony probation through August 2019.
In June 2019 the state filed an affidavit and obtained an arrest warrant alleging failure to “[r]eport as directed,” and defendant was arrested in November 2019.
In December 2019—after the scheduled probation end date—the state filed a supplemental affidavit alleging a separate violation (failure to “[o]bey all laws”).
Defendant moved to dismiss the supplemental allegation as untimely; the trial court denied the motion, found violations, and revoked probation, relying in part on OAR 213-005-0008(3) (exclusion of time while an offender has absconded).
The Court of Appeals held the sentencing court lacked authority to revoke probation based on the supplemental allegation because it was filed after probation expired and no deliberate judicial extension (or finding of absconding) occurred; vacated and remanded for resentencing in two cases and affirmed in the third.

Issue	State's Argument	LaCoe's Argument	Held
Whether a supplemental probation allegation filed after the scheduled end of probation can support revocation	The probationary period was effectively tolled by issuance of the arrest warrant and/or by operation of OAR 213-005-0008(3), so the supplemental allegation was timely	Probation expired in August 2019 because the court did not deliberately extend it; an allegation filed after expiration is untimely and cannot support revocation	Held: Supplemental allegation filed after probation ended was untimely; revocation based on it was unauthorized and sentencing judgments vacated/remanded in two cases
Whether OAR 213-005-0008(3) automatically tolls/extends probation upon issuance of a bench warrant or requires a judicial finding of "absconding"	The rule allows exclusion of absconding time and the court’s subsequent revocation shows the period was tolled; the court implicitly found absconding	The rule requires an explicit judicial determination that the offender absconded before time is excluded and probation can be extended; mere filing of a warrant or allegation is insufficient	Held: OAR 213-005-0008(3) requires a deliberate judicial act/finding that the defendant absconded to exclude time and extend probation; no such finding was made here

State v. Berglund, 311 Or App 424 (2021) (probationary-period expansion must be an explicit judicial act; violations to be adjudicated must be charged during probation)
State v. Vanlieu, 251 Or App 361 (2012) (extension of probation is a deliberate judicial act, not automatic upon filing a show-cause order)
State v. Miller, 224 Or App 642 (2008) (court lacks authority to revoke based on allegations filed after probation expired)
State v. Robbins, 345 Or 28 (2008) (adopts ordinary/dictionary meaning of "abscond"; single missed appointment insufficient to show intent to evade)
State v. Coventry, 290 Or App 463 (2018) (sentencing court authority to revoke probation exists solely by statutory grant)