Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Maack

Court of Appeals of Oregon

April 15, 2015

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,

Argued and Submitted May 27, 2014.

CR0200769. Clackamas County Circuit Court. Eve L. Miller, Judge.

Andrew D. Robinson, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

Doug M. Petrina, Senior Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Mooney, Judge pro tempore.


Page 266

[270 Or.App. 401] HADLOCK, J.

In 2002, defendant pleaded guilty to three felony sex crimes. He received downward departure sentences of 10 years of probation on two of those convictions and five years of probation on the third, with all of those probationary terms to be served concurrently. In 2012, the trial court revoked defendant's probation on one of those convictions for having violated a probation condition that prohibited him from using the Internet. On appeal from the judgment revoking his probation, defendant argues that the Internet ban was an invalid probation condition and, therefore, the trial court erred when it revoked his probation for having violated that condition. We review both the " imposition of probation conditions" and a trial court's revocation of probation " for errors of law." State v. Gaskill, 250 Or.App. 100, 101, 279 P.3d 275 (2012) (conditions); State v. Miller, 224 Or.App. 642, 644, 199 P.3d 329 (2008) (revocation). We conclude

Page 267

that defendant has not established that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we affirm.

Except as noted below, the pertinent facts are undisputed. When defendant was 14 or 15 years old, he committed crimes against a girl who was about 10 years old and who lived in the same household as defendant. The prosecutor represented at the probation-revocation hearing, without contradiction, that defendant had engaged in sexual acts with the victim about 50 times, sometimes paying her money. Defendant was charged with eight crimes, including rape, sodomy, unlawful sexual penetration, and multiple counts of sexual abuse. He pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree sodomy (Count 2), attempted first-degree unlawful sexual penetration (Count 3), and attempted first-degree sexual abuse (Count 4), and the remaining charges were dismissed.

The sentencing court imposed the probationary sentences described above, after finding, among other things, that treatment was likely to be more effective than incarceration in " reducing offender recidivism" and that the probationary sentences would " serve community safety interests by promoting offender reformation." As a special condition of probation, the court imposed the " sex offender package," 402 State v. Maack [270 Or.App. 402] which, among other things, (1) prohibited defendant from having any contact with minors without prior approval from his probation officer, (2) prohibited defendant from using or possessing any form of pornography (including " computer-based pictures" ), and (3) required defendant to " [c]onsent to, and cooperate with, any plan deemed necessary by probation officer and/or therapists to maintain and monitor offense-free behavior for the duration of the probation." The court also ordered defendant to complete a residential and day-treatment program, as well as individual and group counseling.

Defendant entered the required residential and day-treatment program in late 2002 and was discharged after successfully completing the program in mid-2004. He transitioned back to a public high school to complete his senior year after " [b]oundaries, rules, and expectations were set regarding restrictions of contact with minors" (he was permitted to contact 16- and 17-year-old minors while at school, but not elsewhere). In October 2004, defendant missed several days of school after he drank a large quantity of vodka. Later that year, after defendant had missed about one-third of his scheduled classes, he was told that he would need to take classes at a community college to earn his high-school diploma. Thereafter, defendant's probation officers reported numerous probation violations. His probation officer recommended against probation revocation, but reported the violation to keep the court apprised of defendant's progress and " the work that still needs to be done." Although defendant's consumption of vodka had violated the probation condition that defendant obey all laws, the probation officer recommended that a condition be added explicitly prohibiting alcohol consumption. That " no alcohol" condition was soon added.

Defendant violated his probation several times in 2005. In June, his probation officer reported that defendant had attended a barbecue where children were present. Defendant had also admitted viewing pornographic websites on his father's computer, on which over 900 pornographic images had been found. Defendant's probation officer recommended that he be sanctioned and required to perform [270 Or.App. 403] community service work. Defendant also attended a movie theater where children were present. He " admitted to frequenting sound sites on the Internet that contain sexually explosive sounds" and had tried to " pick up girlfriends" in online chat rooms. In addition, defendant admitted to continued fantasies about the victim and to being attracted to pornographic websites. Defendant was referred for further treatment in August 2005.

In 2006, when defendant was 19 or 20 years old, he had a sexual relationship with a person who was only 17 years old, but who had shown defendant false identification and had misled him about her age. That same year, defendant entered into an " Internet-use contract" with his treatment provider, in which he agreed " to maintain blockers" and not to use ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.