and submitted November 14, 2016
review from the Court of Appeals CC 120833582; CA
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.
Balmer, Chief Justice, and Kistler, Walters, Landau, Brewer,
Nakamoto, and Flynn, Justices. [**]
Or. 841] Case Summary:
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
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.
decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of
the circuit court is affirmed.
Or. 842] LANDAU, J.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ...