Duty of court to ascertain and impose punishment
Source:
Section 137.010 — Duty of court to ascertain and impose punishment, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors137.html.
Notes of Decisions
Unless it is clear from the judgment that the sentences are to be served consecutively, they are to be construed as concurrent. State v. Blake, 7 Or App 307, 490 P2d 1026 (1971)
The oral pronouncement from the bench is the judgment. State v. Blake, 7 Or App 307, 490 P2d 1026 (1971)
A trial court has inherent power to impose a combined concurrent:B1.consecutive sentence for a single offense. Trahan v. Cupp, 8 Or App 466, 493 P2d 1391 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 409 US 884
A trial court has inherent power to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences in appropriate situations. Trahan v. Cupp, 8 Or App 466, 493 P2d 1391 (1972), Sup Ct review denied, cert. denied, 409 US 884
Deterrent effect on others is a relevant consideration in imposing sentence. State v. Patzer, 8 Or App 491, 493 P2d 1389 (1972), Sup Ct review denied
Trial court lacked authority to stay period of probation pending outcome of appeal. State ex rel Dillavou v. Foster, 273 Or 319, 541 P2d 811 (1975); State v. Popp, 118 Or App 508, 848 P2d 134 (1993)
The court’s supervisory jurisdiction over a defendant is limited to a maximum of five years from the date of disposition. State v. Maddox, 29 Or App 787, 564 P2d 1372 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Where show cause order initiating revocation of defendant’s probation was issued prior to expiration of probationary period, court retained jurisdiction to enter revocation order after the period had expired. State v. Lopez, 30 Or App 687, 569 P2d 1059 (1977)
Notwithstanding that maximum period of imprisonment which may be imposed for commission of Class A misdemeanor is one year, trial court was empowered to suspend sentence of nine months’ imprisonment and place defendant on probation for period of five years. State v. Williams, 31 Or App 381, 570 P2d 424 (1977)
Revocation of suspended sentence and reimposition of sentence after October 4, 1977, requires preparation of presentence report pursuant to [former] ORS 144.790. State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978)
Imposition of five-year probation term, commencing immediately but necessarily extending beyond three-year period of confinement to which defendant was contemporaneously sentenced on another charge was within statutory authority of court. State v. Jones, 36 Or App 271, 584 P2d 349 (1978)
Where defendant was convicted of rape and kidnapping, but judge imposed sentence only for rape conviction, defendant could not complain about error. State v. Dorsey, 44 Or App 721, 607 P2d 204 (1980)
Where statute enacted after defendant committed crime provided for additional year of probation in lieu of probation revocation and defendant was placed on probation for additional year pursuant to that statute, defendant was subjected to greater sentence than that to which he was susceptible when he committed crime, in violation of ex post facto provision of Oregon Constitution. State v. Metzler, 72 Or App 555, 696 P2d 576 (1985)
Sentencing order that provides for 10 years’ imprisonment along with separate five-year probation, conditioned on defendant serving one year in county jail consecutive to prison term, does not violate this section because order means that jail term will be served consecutively to prison term only if defendant is released from prison before period of probation expires. State v. Nunn, 84 Or App 642, 734 P2d 1375 (1987)
Where defendant pleaded guilty, argument that trial court lacked authority to revoke its order suspending imposition of sentence or to impose any sentence failed to raise issue within scope of appellate review. State v. Blaney, 101 Or App 273, 790 P2d 549 (1990)
Trial court may not impose conditions of parole as part of sentence but court may make express recommendation to parole board for special conditions of parole. State v. Edwards, 103 Or App 410, 797 P2d 402 (1990); State v. Potter, 108 Or App 480, 816 P2d 661 (1991)
Trial court was without authority to impose fine as punishment for defendant’s murder conviction. State v. Batty, 109 Or App 62, 819 P2d 732 (1991), Sup Ct review denied
Where imposition of any sentence for misdemeanor is discretionary and felony sentencing guidelines impose mandatory sentence, existence of felony sentencing guidelines does not render disproportionate misdemeanant’s sentence of incarceration. State v. Rice, 114 Or App 101, 836 P2d 731 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Because sentencing guidelines do not apply to misdemeanor convictions, trial court did not err by requiring defendant to serve consecutive misdemeanor sentences after serving prison term for felony conviction. State v. Miller, 114 Or App 235, 835 P2d 131 (1992)
Adjudications sufficient to commit juvenile to juvenile facility may be used as basis for enhancing sentence for crime committed as adult. State v. Stewart, 123 Or App 147, 859 P2d 545 (1993), modified 126 Or App 456, 868 P2d 794 (1994), aff’d 321 Or 1, 892 P2d 1013 (1995)
Where case is remanded for resentencing, five-year probation limit applicable to suspended sentences is measured from date original sentence was imposed. State v. Lewis, 137 Or App 108, 903 P2d 391 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Where court imposes concurrent terms of probation for some counts and incarceration for other counts, trial court loses authority to modify sentences once any sentence has been put into effect. State v. Hamlin, 151 Or App 481, 950 P2d 336 (1997), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Lebeck, 171 Or App 581, 17 P3d 504 (2000)
Execution of judgment commences as soon as defendant is physically delivered to Department of Corrections, regardless of whether judgment is served concurrently or consecutively with another judgment ordering defendant to department’s custody. State v. DeCamp, 158 Or App 238, 973 P2d 922 (1999)
Fine may be sentence, condition of probation, or both. State v. Zimmerman, 166 Or App 635, 999 P2d 547 (2000)
Trial court retains authority to modify legally invalid sentence notwithstanding execution of sentence. State v. Horsley, 168 Or App 559, 7 P3d 646 (2000)
COMPLETED CITATIONS: State v. Morasch, 5 Or App 211, 483 P2d 474 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Ragghianti, 5 Or App 498, 484 P2d 1125 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Smith, 6 Or App 27, 487 P2d 90 (1971), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Penland, 6 Or App 255, 486 P2d 1314 (1971), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
24 WLR 1158 (1988)
Up to date