State v. Richards
277 Or. App. 128
| Or. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Nov. 2012 defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary and first-degree theft and received concurrent three-year probation terms.
- In Mar. 2013 the court revoked probation on the theft conviction, imposing 60 days jail and 12 months post-prison supervision. Probation on the burglary conviction was continued.
- In May 2013 the supervising officer alleged post-prison supervision violations (failure to contact and to notify change of residence) and imposed a 3-day jail administrative sanction under the agency’s rules.
- In Nov. 2013 the trial court revoked probation on the burglary conviction based on the same conduct and imposed 17 months imprisonment and three years post-prison supervision.
- Defendant appealed, arguing ORS 137.593(3) barred revocation because he had already completed a structured, intermediate sanction for the same conduct under rules adopted pursuant to ORS 137.595.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 137.593(3) prevents a court from revoking probation where an administrative structured intermediate sanction already was completed for the same conduct | State: ORS 137.593(3) limits court authority only where the agency-imposed structured sanction was for the same probation violation; does not apply to different supervisory regimes | DeMuniz: The agency 3-day sanction under rules adopted pursuant to ORS 137.595 triggered the statute’s prohibition and thus barred court revocation of probation | Court held ORS 137.593(3) applies only where the structured, intermediate sanction was imposed for the same probation violation by DOC or county community corrections; a sanction for post-prison supervision of a different conviction does not bar revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (discusses statutory interpretation principles)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (establishes looking to plain meaning and context in statutory construction)
- Taylor v. Lane County, 213 Or. App. 633 (application of plain-meaning statutory interpretation)
- Lane County v. LCDC, 325 Or. 569 (counsels construing statute as a whole for harmonious meaning)