State v. Lewis, 257 Or. App. 641

Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony drug counts (Counts 1, 2, 4) and one misdemeanor drug count (Count 6); probation (5 years) was imposed on the felonies and 120 days jail on the misdemeanor.
Over a year later, defendant admitted a single probation violation (marijuana use) at a show-cause hearing.
The trial court revoked probation on Counts 1, 2, and 4 and imposed incarceration: 24 months (Count 1), 23 months consecutive to Count 1 (Count 2), and 25 months concurrent with Count 1 (Count 4).
Defendant appealed only the consecutive sanction on Count 2, arguing OAR 213-012-0040(2) requires concurrent sanctions when multiple probation terms are revoked for a single violation.
The Court of Appeals agreed, finding the rule and prior precedent (State v. Stokes) mandate concurrent incarceration when multiple probation terms are revoked based on a single supervision violation; it reversed the consecutive sanction on Count 2 and affirmed the other case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could impose consecutive incarceration sanctions when multiple probation terms were revoked for a single probation violation	State: plea paperwork and plea negotiations contemplated consecutive sentences; court could impose consecutive sanctions	Defendant: OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires concurrent sanctions where multiple probation terms are revoked for a single violation	Court: OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) and Stokes require concurrent sanctions for a single probation violation; consecutive sanction on Count 2 was error
Whether defendant effectively stipulated to consecutive sanctions in plea agreement	State: plea terms indicated counts warranted consecutive sentences and said the State would seek consecutive sentences upon violation	Defendant: plea language did not constitute a stipulation to consecutive revocation sanctions	Court: plea language did not show defendant agreed to consecutive revocation sanctions; it described what the State might seek
Whether Miller requires a different result for consecutive sentences on separate convictions from different episodes	State: Miller interpretation of former OAR might allow concurrent/consecutive treatment different from Stokes rule	Defendant: Miller governs initial sentencing and is inapplicable to revocation sanctions under OAR 213-012-0040(2)	Court: Miller is inapposite; the rule here governs revocation sanctions and differs from initial-sentencing rules

State v. Stokes, 133 Or. App. 355 (1995) (construing OAR provision to require concurrent revocation sanctions when multiple probation terms are revoked for a single supervision violation)
State v. Miller, 317 Or. 297 (1993) (interpreting a different OAR provision governing initial sentencing, not revocation sanctions)