Presentence report
- other writings considered in imposing sentence
- disclosure to parties
- court’s authority to except parts from disclosure
Source:
Section 137.079 — Presentence report; other writings considered in imposing sentence; disclosure to parties; court’s authority to except parts from disclosure, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors137.html.
Notes of Decisions
A defendant has a constitutional right to a copy of that part of a presentence report which deals with public information and relates to his prior criminal record. Buchea v. Sullivan, 262 Or 222, 497 P2d 1169 (1972)
Appointment of psychologist to assist defendant in preparing for the sentencing hearing eliminated any need for disclosure of the psychological test data underlying conclusions contained in the presentence report. State v. Eder, 29 Or App 375, 563 P2d 765 (1977)
Where trial court, in sentencing, considered confidential information not contained in presentence report and stated that reasons for nondisclosure were that information was “basically covered” by presentence report and that it was confidential, there was no basis for appellate review and resentencing was required. State v. McCaffrey, 45 Or App 87, 607 P2d 777 (1980)
It was error for trial judge to deny defendant’s request for presentence report and only to make copy of report available in his chambers for defense counsel to look at. State v. Green, 49 Or App 949, 621 P2d 67 (1980)
Absent waiver, there is no acceptable alternative to strict compliance with this section, so despite fact defendant was illiterate and of limited intelligence, reading pre-sentence report to defendant rather than supplying him with a copy was error. State v. Carsner, 289 Or 645, 616 P2d 491 (1980)
Where statement of reason for court not disclosing part of presentence report or other written information was not provided, remand for resentencing was required. State v. Fears, 69 Or App 606, 688 P2d 88 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
It was error for trial court to classify out-of-state conviction as felony conviction for purposes of Sentencing Guidelines when elements of offense did not constitute felony or Class A misdemeanor under current Oregon law, even though offense was classified as felony in other state. State v. Tapp, 110 Or App 1, 821 P2d 1098 (1991)
Review of finding by sentencing court that defendant’s conviction was counseled was decision on issue “relating to a defendant’s criminal history” and not subject to review under this section. State v. Holliday, 110 Or App 426, 824 P2d 1148 (1992), Sup Ct review denied
Sentencing guidelines do not eliminate requirement that if defendant disputes any part of criminal history in presentence investigation report defendant must notify district attorney and court in writing. State v. Delgado, 111 Or App 162, 826 P2d 1014 (1992)
Nonreviewable nature of determination whether criminal history exists does not preclude review under [former] ORS 138.222 of whether consideration of criminal history during sentencing was proper. State v. Leslie, 134 Or App 366, 895 P2d 342 (1995), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Crain, 192 Or App 328, 84 P3d 1092 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant challenges inclusion of prior juvenile adjudication in criminal history, defendant may demonstrate adjudication was uncounseled either by affirmative showing defendant was not represented or by showing record is silent on matter. State v. Riggins, 180 Or App 525, 44 P3d 615 (2002)
Where defendant challenges criminal history and demonstrates prior juvenile adjudication was uncounseled, state must establish juvenile and juvenile’s parents were aware of right to counsel and intentionally waived right. State v. Riggins, 180 Or App 525, 44 P3d 615 (2002)
“Criminal history” does not include calculation of criminal history score in presentence report. State v. Torres, 184 Or App 515, 59 P3d 47 (2002)
Where defendant challenges criminal history based on lack of counsel during prior proceeding, unavailability of record for prior proceeding does not allow inference that defendant was unrepresented. State v. Crain, 192 Or App 328, 84 P3d 1092 (2004), Sup Ct review denied
Attorney General Opinions
Authority of Board of Parole to adopt procedures for in camera determination of which materials are subject to disclosure to prisoners with respect to parole determinations, (1978) Vol 38, p 1881
Up to date