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. Bastow

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 13, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AARON DAVID BASTOW, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted April 30, 2018.

          Tillamook County Circuit Court 16CR35429; Mari Garric Trevino, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Garrett, Judge, and Powers, Judge.

         Case 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 ruling.

         Affirmed.

         [292 Or.App 384] GARRETT, J.

         Defendant 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.

         The 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.

         A 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.

         On 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.

         We 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 ...


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.