Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Richards

Supreme Court of Oregon

September 14, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review,
v.
MATTHEW EUGENE RICHARDS, Petitioner on Review.

          Argued and submitted November 14, 2016

         On review from the Court of Appeals CC 120833582; CA A155895.[*]

          Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and fled the briefs for petitioner on review. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender.

          Shannon T. Reel, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent on review. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Landau, Brewer, Nakamoto, and Flynn, Justices. [**]

         [361 Or. 841] Case Summary:

         In a probation violation proceeding, the trial court revoked probation based on defendant's violation of the conditions of probation despite the fact that defendant had already served a sanction for violating the same condition of post-prison supervision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and defendant petitioned for review.

         Held:

         (1) when an individual is serving both probation and post-prison supervision and violates the conditions of both, the trial court may revoke probation if that individual has not yet completed a probation violation sanction; and (2) because defendant had served a post-prison supervision sanction rather than a probation violation sanction, the trial court had authority to revoke his probation.

         The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

         [361 Or. 842] LANDAU, J.

         When an individual has been convicted of a felony, the sentencing court may impose a term of imprisonment, followed by release on post-prison supervision that is subject to certain conditions. Or, the trial court may instead sentence the individual to a term of probation, also subject to conditions. An individual who has been convicted of more than one criminal offense may serve probation for one offense and post-prison supervision for another at the same time. And when that individual violates a condition of one form of release, the same conduct may violate a condition of the other form of release as well. That is to say, when an individual has been released on both probation and post-prison supervision subject to the same or similar conditions, a single act may violate the conditions of both probation and post-prison supervision.

         This is such a case. Defendant was sentenced on two different criminal offenses and was subject to both probation and post-prison supervision at the same time. A condition of both was that he not change addresses without permission. He did not comply with that condition. As a result, the official who supervised his post-prison supervision on one offense imposed a sanction of three days in jail. The trial court imposed an additional sanction of revoking his probation on the other offense and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment on that offense. The issue in this case is whether the trial court had authority to do so. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court does have such authority. State v. Richards, 277 Or.App. 128, 130, 370 P.3d 874 (2016). For the reasons that follow, we agree and affirm.

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The relevant facts are not in dispute. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree burglary and one count of first-degree theft. On the burglary conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence of 36 months' supervised probation. On the theft conviction, the trial court also imposed a sentence of 36 months' probation. The sentences ran concurrently. Both were subject to general conditions of probation, including that defendant report to his supervising officer as directed and that he not change residences without [361 Or. 843] permission. The judgment specified that the trial court itself would supervise defendant's probation.

         Four months later, defendant changed his residence without permission. The court revoked defendant's sentence of probation on the theft conviction and imposed a jail sentence, followed by 12 months of post-prison supervision. Conditions of the post-prison supervision included that defendant not change addresses without permission from his supervising officer and that he report on request. The trial court did not revoke the sentence of probation on the burglary conviction. After completing the jail sentence, defendant was on both probation (for the burglary conviction) and post-prison supervision (for the theft conviction). A Deschutes County Probation and Parole Officer was assigned to supervise defendant for both probation and post-prison supervision.

         Shortly after being released, defendant again violated his conditions of release in changing his address without permission. The county officer obtained a warrant for defendant's arrest. Defendant failed to respond. Several months later, defendant voluntarily surrendered to the county officer and consented to the imposition of a three-day jail sanction for his violation of the conditions of post-prison supervision.

         When the trial court learned of the violation, it held a probation violation hearing to decide whether the court should revoke defendant's sentence of probation on the burglary conviction. At the hearing, defendant conceded that he had violated a condition of his probation, but he argued that the trial court could not revoke probation because, by that time, he had already served the three-day term of incarceration that his supervising officer had imposed for the violation of the terms of his post-prison ...


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.