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. Cooper

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 10, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AMANDA DEEANNE COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted September 13, 2018

          Washington County Circuit Court C151368CR, C152318CR; D. Charles Bailey, Jr., Judge.

          Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge. [*]

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals judgments revoking her probation. The trial court revoked defendant's probation after finding that defendant violated the condition of her probation that she remain in clean and sober housing and that the purposes of probation were no longer being served.

         Held:

         The record does not support the trial court's finding that defendant violated the condition of her probation that she remain in clean and sober housing, and, because the trial court's additional finding that the purposes of probation were no longer being served was based on the finding that she violated the condition to remain in clean and sober housing, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.

         [298 Or.App. 446] ORTEGA, P. J.

         In her consolidated appeal, defendant seeks reversal of judgments revoking her probation, which were based on the trial court's determinations that she violated conditions of her probation and that the purposes of probation were not being met. On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. We agree and, consequently, we reverse and remand.

         The relevant facts are largely procedural and undisputed. After defendant entered guilty pleas to four felonies in two cases, she was sentenced to five years' probation. Defendant agreed to conditions of probation that required her to engage in drug and alcohol treatment as directed by her probation officer, live in clean and sober housing, and not change her address without permission from her probation officer. After defendant violated the rules of the clean and sober housing facility where she was living, her recovery mentor asked her to find other clean and sober housing facility. However, defendant was not evicted, and she continued to live in the same facility.

         The state alleged that defendant violated probation by changing her address without her probation officer's permission and the special condition that requires her to reside in clean and sober housing. After a hearing, the court found that defendant had violated the conditions of her probation and that the purposes of probation were no longer being met. The court revoked defendant's probation and imposed 44 months' incarceration.

         At the hearing, there was extended discussion and testimony regarding defendant's conduct in her housing placement, the substance of which we summarize here. The rules at the clean and sober housing facility required that defendant obtain permission to have a visitor stay overnight during the week. After defendant had her daughter over night without first obtaining permission, defendant's recovery mentor reiterated the house rules to her. Defendant became upset that her housemates had "snitched," which led to a "heated" discussion between defendant and her housemates. Defendant made no specific threats against anyone, but her recovery mentor put her on a behavioral plan, [298 Or.App. 447] giving her 30 days to change her conduct. The plan required defendant to speak "nicely" ...


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.