State v. Orcutt, 280 Or. App. 439

Defendant pleaded guilty in Jan 2013 to two counts of identity theft and received a stipulated downward dispositional departure: concurrent 36-month probation terms instead of the presumptive prison terms. The judgment referenced ORS 137.717.
At the time of the plea, the presumptive sentence under ORS 137.717(1) (2012) for her history produced a 34-month prison term per count.
Legislature amended ORS 137.717 in 2013, lowering the baseline presumptive term; for defendant’s history the amended statute would yield a 28-month presumptive term. The amendment applied to “sentences imposed on or after August 1, 2013.”
Defendant violated probation; at revocation in Sept 2013 the trial court revoked probation and imposed concurrent 34-month terms (the maximum presumptive term that could have been imposed initially).
Defendant appealed, arguing she was entitled to the reduced presumptive term under the 2013 amendments because her revocation sentence was imposed after August 1, 2013.
The court analyzed OAR 213-010-0002(2) (probation-revocation sanction rule), ORS 137.717, and the 2013 amendments’ effective-date language to resolve whether the amended presumptive term applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2013 amendments to ORS 137.717 apply to a prison term imposed on revocation of probation after Aug 1, 2013	The revocation sanction is not a new sentence under ORS 137.717; the relevant sentencing occurred at the original Jan 2013 disposition, so amendments do not apply	The revocation sentence was "imposed on" Sept 2013 and thus falls within the statute’s effective-date language entitling her to the lower presumptive term	Held: Amendments do not apply to revocation sentences for persons originally sentenced before Aug 1, 2013; OAR 213-010-0002(2) controls and permits imposition up to the presumptive sentence in effect at the initial sentencing (34 months)

State v. Thompson, 257 Or App 336 (2013) (standard of review for legal error on appeal)
State v. Anderson, 243 Or App 222 (2011) (probation-revocation sanction based on grid at time of initial sentence)
State v. Webster, 280 Or App 217 (2016) (OAR refers to statutorily designated presumptive sentences)
State v. Sauer, 205 Or App 428 (2006) (statutes construed in context)
State v. Johnson, 271 Or App 272 (2015) (judgments imposing probation-revocation sanctions are appealable)
State v. Lane, 357 Or 619 (2015) (probation-revocation sanctions qualify as "sentences" for appeal statutes)
State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (text, context, and legislative history framework for statutory interpretation)