State v. Patterson
344 P.3d 497
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to four Class C felonies and received dispositional departures to probation (36 months on each count) with recognized presumptive prison terms (Counts 2–4: 18 months under BM 57).
- Plea agreement and court advisements explained that probation could be revoked and presumptive prison terms could be imposed if probation failed; defendant acknowledged those warnings.
- Five months later, defendant admitted two probation violations (failure to pay fines/restitution and possession of weapons). The trial court revoked probation.
- At revocation proceedings the trial court announced it would "sentence" defendant to jail/prison on the underlying convictions (60 days on Count 1; 18 months on Counts 2–4), ordering Count 3 concurrent with Count 2 but Count 4 consecutive to Count 2 (total 36 months).
- On appeal defendant challenged the imposition of consecutive terms; the state argued either ORS 137.123 justified consecutive sentencing or, alternatively, that OAR 213-012-0040(2) permitted consecutive revocation sanctions.
- The court concluded the trial court erred: it lacked authority to resentence after revocation and should have imposed revocation sanctions under the CJC rules rather than impose consecutive sentences under ORS 137.123.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive prison terms on Counts 2 and 4 were properly imposed under ORS 137.123 | State: trial court permissibly imposed consecutive terms (court found conduct did not occur in one continuous course) | Defendant: record shows Counts 2 and 4 arose from same August incident; consecutive terms under ORS 137.123(2) unsupported | Reversed: record does not support finding under ORS 137.123(2); consecutive sentences cannot stand |
| Whether ORS 137.123 governs revocation sanctions or OAR controls, making consecutive sanctions permissible | State: ORS 137.123 need not apply to revocation; OAR 213-012-0040(2) permits consecutive revocation incarceration sanctions | Defendant: court actually imposed sentence (not revocation sanctions) and lacked authority to resentence; even if OAR applied, record would differ and court may not have imposed consecutive sanctions | Reversed: ORS 137.123 does not govern revocation sanctions; revocation sanctions are governed by OARs, but court erred by imposing sentence rather than sanctions and record insufficient to affirm on other grounds |
| Whether appellate review is foreclosed by stipulated sentencing agreement | State: implied limitation because parties agreed presumptive terms would apply on revocation | Defendant: did not stipulate to consecutive revocation terms | Court: Appellate review allowed for portions not covered by stipulation; consecutive-term issue reviewable |
| Whether remand should require imposition of revocation sanctions instead of resentencing | State: urged affirmance on alternative basis (consecutive revocation sanctions) | Defendant: requested reversal and remand for proper revocation-sanctions proceedings | Remanded: reversed and remanded for trial court to impose appropriate revocation sanctions under applicable CJC rules (not to resentence) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Newell, 238 Or App 385 (discusses distinction between sentencing and probation-revocation sanctions and directs application of CJC rules to revocations)
- State v. Lane, 260 Or App 549 (explains revocation sanctions punish probation violations, not original crimes)
- State v. Hart, 299 Or 128 (articulates traditional goals of sentencing)
- Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (describes when appellate courts may affirm for the right reason despite wrong reasoning below)
- State v. Ivie, 213 Or App 198 (addresses reviewability where parts of a stipulated sentence comply with stipulation and parts do not)