State v. Rivera-Waddle, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 801

Defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a public safety officer and received 60 days incarceration and 36 months probation.
Judgment required a $200 fine payable on a schedule set by the probation officer; general probation conditions included reporting and following the probation officer’s directions.
The probation order did not expressly prohibit alcohol use, but defendant signed three post-sentencing "action plans" prepared by her probation officer in which she agreed to abstain from intoxicants.
State filed a show-cause order alleging five probation violations: failure to pay financial obligations, failure to abstain from intoxicants, failure to provide a physical address, failure to follow officer direction, and failure to report.
At the hearing the officer testified to nonpayment, alcohol use, homelessness/no address, and missed reporting; defendant testified she was homeless, denied drinking, and had trouble attending appointments.
The trial court found all five violations proven by a preponderance, revoked probation, and imposed 30 months incarceration with 24 months post-prison supervision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation may be revoked for violating an abstinence condition imposed by a probation officer post-sentencing	State argued any error harmless because trial court found all five violations and would have revoked anyway	Devore argued Maag bars revocation for conditions imposed by probation officer after sentencing	Court held the abstinence condition was invalid (post‑sentencing officer‑imposed) and plain error; exercised discretion to correct and reversed/remanded
Whether revocation for failure to pay financial obligations was valid absent specific findings	State did not fully contest on appeal and argued harmlessness	Devore argued revocation required specific findings on inability to pay per Fuller	Court declined to decide on plain‑error review; remanded for trial court to consider this issue in the first instance

State v. Maag, 41 Or. App. 133, 597 P.2d 838 (1979) (probation officer may not impose new conditions after sentencing)
State v. Pike, 49 Or. App. 67, 618 P.2d 1315 (1980) (reversed where court could not determine whether revocation rested on impermissible officer‑imposed condition)
State v. Stephens, 47 Or. App. 305, 614 P.2d 1180 (1980) (probation officer’s authority is derivative of the sentencing court)
State v. Fuller, 12 Or. App. 152, 504 P.2d 1393 (1973) (trial court must make specific findings before revoking probation for failure to pay costs)
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc., 312 Or. 376, 823 P.2d 956 (1991) (factors for exercising discretion to correct plain error)
State v. Brown, 310 Or. 347, 800 P.2d 259 (1990) (standards for plain‑error review)