State v. Lane, 318 P.3d 750

Defendant pleaded no contest to four felony counts of encouraging child sexual abuse involving four different victims; each count had a presumptive prison range of 16–18 months but the court imposed 60 months’ probation on each as dispositional departures.
A probation condition prohibited alcohol consumption; roughly two years later the State filed a show-cause alleging defendant drank alcohol (and possibly visited a bar) and failed to submit to a polygraph.
Defendant admitted consuming alcohol; the court revoked probation for the violation and later imposed 18 months’ imprisonment on each count (the maximum presumptive term) as revocation sanctions.
The trial court ordered the four 18-month terms to produce a 36-month total by running two pairs concurrently and those pairs consecutively.
Defendant appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to impose consecutive incarceration terms for a single probation violation under OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) and controlling precedent (State v. Stokes).
The State defended the consecutive terms based on Article I, §44(1)(b) of the Oregon Constitution (Measure 74), asserting the word “sentence” allows consecutive terms where underlying convictions involved separate victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article I, §44(1)(b) (Measure 74) permits a trial court to impose consecutive incarceration terms as revocation sanctions for a single probation violation when the underlying convictions involve different victims	Measure 74’s use of "sentence" encompasses imposition of incarceration on probation revocation, so OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) cannot bar consecutive terms where crimes involved multiple victims	OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires concurrent incarceration sanctions for multiple probations revoked for a single supervision violation; Stokes controls and bars consecutive revocation terms for a single violation	The court held Measure 74 does not apply to probation revocation sanctions for felony cases; revocation sanctions punish the probation violation conduct, not the underlying crime, so OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) required concurrent terms; remanded to order concurrent terms

State v. Stokes, 133 Or. App. 355, 891 P.2d 13 (Or. Ct. App. 1995) (OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires concurrent revocation sanctions for a single supervision violation)
State v. Newell, 238 Or. App. 385, 242 P.3d 709 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (distinction between sentencing for conviction and revocation sanctions; commentary treating revocation sanctions as punishment for supervision violations)
State v. Guyton, 126 Or. App. 143, 868 P.2d 1335 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (limits on court authority when imposing revocation sanctions under guidelines)
State v. Barajas, 254 Or. App. 106, 292 P.3d 636 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (addressing purpose of imprisonment on probation violation in misdemeanor context)
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or. 38, 11 P.3d 228 (Or. 2000) (principles for interpreting voter-adopted constitutional provisions)
Roseburg School Dist. v. City of Roseburg, 316 Or. 374, 851 P.2d 595 (Or. 1993) (contextual approach to ballot-measure interpretation)
State v. Lucas, 113 Or. App. 12, 830 P.2d 601 (Or. Ct. App. 1992) (limitations on suspending execution of prison sentences for felonies)
State v. Branam, 220 Or. App. 255, 185 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (application of sentencing guidelines to felonies)