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. Waldron

Court of Appeals of Oregon

June 19, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL DAVID WALDRON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted May 8, 2019.

          Washington County Circuit Court 16CN01208, 16CR65204, 16CR66117 D. Charles Bailey, Jr., Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erin J. Snyder Severe, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

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

          Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Landau, Senior Judge.

         In Case No. 16CR65204, reversed and remanded with instructions to correct judgment regarding imposition of conditions of post-prison supervision; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 16CN01208 and 16CR66117, affirmed.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals probation revocation judgments in three cases that were consolidated for appeal. He argues that, in one of the cases, the trial court erred by imposing a sanction of 24 months' imprisonment pursuant to OAR 213-010-0002(2) and then exceeded its authority by imposing conditions of post-prison supervision (PPS). And he argues that, in the other two, the court plainly erred by including provisions in the judgments that enforced payment of monetary obligations while he was still imprisoned. Held: The trial court did not plainly err by imposing the sanction of 24 months' imprisonment; however, the court did plainly err when it imposed PPS conditions, and the judgment in that case must be remanded to correct the error. With regard to the provisions in the judgments concerning payment of monetary obligations, defendant failed to explain why the Court of Appeals should exercise its discretion to correct the error.

          [298 Or.App. 181] In Case No. 16CR65204, reversed and remanded with instructions to correct judgment regarding imposition of conditions of post-prison supervision; otherwise affirmed. In Case Nos. 16CN01208 and 16CR66117, affirmed.

          [298 Or.App. 182] LAGESEN, P. J.

         Defendant appeals probation revocation judgments in three cases that were consolidated for appeal. He argues that, in one of the cases, the trial court erred by imposing a sanction of 24 months' imprisonment pursuant to OAR 213-010-0002(2) and then exceeded its authority by imposing conditions of post-prison supervision (PPS). He argues that, in the other two cases, the court plainly erred by including provisions in the judgments that enforced payment of monetary obligations while he was still imprisoned. For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendant that the court erred when it imposed PPS conditions, and we remand the judgment in that case to correct the error; otherwise, we affirm.

         CASE NO. 16CR65204

         In Case No. 16CR65204, defendant was convicted of first-degree theft, and, in December 2016, the trial court sentenced him as a repeat property offender under ORS 137.717 and imposed a 36-month probationary sentence. In July 2017, the court held a hearing on allegations that defendant had violated the terms of his probation. The court found that defendant was in violation, revoked probation, and imposed a sanction of 24 months in prison:

"On 16CR65204, [I] find the purpose of probation [is] no longer being met, I impose 24 months in prison followed by one year post-prison supervision term. As recommendations of post-prison supervision: Have the same conditions of probations that you've already before."

         Thereafter, the court entered a judgment revoking probation, imposing the 24-month sanction and one year of PPS, and stating, "Other conditions: Same ...


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.