Submitted April 30, 2018.
Tillamook County Circuit Court 16CR35429; Mari Garric
G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and
Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense
Services, filed the brief for appellant.
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor
General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers,
Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation.
He contends that the trial court erred in revoking probation
because the only evidence that he violated the terms of
probation was his uncorroborated admission to using
controlled substances. Held: The trial court did not
err in revoking probation because defendant's admission,
although uncorroborated, was sufficient to support the
Or.App 384] GARRETT, J.
appeals a judgment revoking his probation. We write to
address only defendant's second assignment of error, in
which he contends that the trial court erred in revoking his
probation because the only evidence that he violated the
terms of probation was his uncorroborated admission to using
controlled substances; we reject his remaining assignment
without discussion. We conclude, contrary to defendant's
argument, that his uncorroborated admission was sufficient to
support revocation. Accordingly, we affirm.
relevant facts are undisputed. Defendant was convicted of
unauthorized use of a vehicle, ORS 164.135, felon in
possession of a restricted weapon, ORS 166.270(2), and
possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. The trial court
placed him on probation for 36 months.
condition of defendant's probation was that he not use or
possess controlled substances. In his first meeting with his
probation officer, defendant admitted that "he was still
actively using methamphetamine a few times a week." At a
subsequent probation revocation hearing, the officer
testified about defendant's admission, and the state
requested that the court revoke probation. The state
presented no other evidence of defendant's conduct.
Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to
support revocation because the state offered no corroborating
evidence of his admission. The trial court disagreed and
revoked probation, sentencing defendant to 30 months in
prison followed by 24 months of post-prison supervision.
appeal, defendant renews his argument that the state was
required to present corroborating evidence of his admission
to support revocation of probation. Defendant relies on ORS
136.425(2), which requires corroborating evidence of
confessions to support convictions of crimes. The state
argues that ORS 136.425(2) does not apply here because it
applies only to criminal proceedings, and not to probation
revocation hearings or other proceedings.
review a trial court's decision to revoke probation for
abuse of discretion. State v. Hammond, 218 Or [292
Or.App 385] App 574, 577, 180 P.3d 137 (2008). Whether ORS
136.425(2) requires corroborating evidence of defendant's
admission of a probation violation to support revocation of