80 P.3d 505
Or. Ct. App.
2003
*573 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment that imposed, as a condition of probation, a requirement that he undergo a sex offender evaluation and receive recommended treatment. Defendant argues that that condition of probation was not properly imposed. The state concedes error, and we accept its concession.

Sex offender treatment may be ordered as a general condition of probation if the defendant is under supervision for, or previously was convicted of, “a sex offense under ORS 163.305 to 163.467.” ORS 137.540(l)(m). Defendant was not under supervision for, or previously convicted of, a sex offense under the specified statutes. See State v. Flicker, 185 Or App 666, 668, 60 P3d 1155 (2003) (out-of-state convictions for sex offenses do not satisfy the conditions of ORS 137.540(l)(m)).

Sex offender treatment may be ordered as a special condition of probation pursuant to ORS 137.540(2) if it is “reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the defendant.” ORS 137.540(2); see State v. Mack, 156 Or App 423, 429, 967 P2d 516 (1998) (if a defendant is convicted of a crime other than a sexual offense but acted with a sexual purpose, requiring sex offender treatment as a special condition of probation is reasonably related to the crime of conviction). In this case, the crime at issue was not a sexual offense, and no evidence was presented that defendant acted with a sexual purpose.

Condition of probation requiring defendant to undergo sex offender evaluation and treatment vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.