Judgment and Execution

ORS 137.123
Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences


(1)

A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant. The court may provide for consecutive sentences only in accordance with the provisions of this section. A sentence shall be deemed to be a concurrent term unless the judgment expressly provides for consecutive sentences.

(2)

If a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for criminal offenses that do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, or if the defendant previously was sentenced by any other court within the United States to a sentence which the defendant has not yet completed, the court may impose a sentence concurrent with or consecutive to the other sentence or sentences.

(3)

When a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated after sentencing for the commission of a previous crime, the court shall provide that the sentence for the new crime be consecutive to the sentence for the previous crime.

(4)

When a defendant has been found guilty of more than one criminal offense arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for each resulting conviction shall be concurrent unless the court complies with the procedures set forth in subsection (5) of this section.

(5)

The court has discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if the court finds:

(a)

That the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated was not merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime but rather was an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense; or

(b)

The criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. [1987 c.2 §12; 1991 c.67 §29; 1991 c.111 §14; 1995 c.657 §2; 2003 c.14 §58]

Notes of Decisions

Where escape sentence was to run consecutively to subsequently imposed burglary sentence, trial court erred in sentencing sequence and technical flaw can be corrected by reversing order of sentences. State of Oregon v. Benedict, 95 Or App 750, 770 P2d 973 (1989)

Trial court was not authorized to order sentence served consecutively to probation imposed in another case by another judge because probation is not "sentence." State v. Gaither, 97 Or App 576, 776 P2d 595 (1989)

Under this section, which expressly authorizes simultaneous imposition of consecutive sentences, trial court did not err in imposing two consecutive six-month suspended jail sentences on defendant. State ex rel Millard v. Wagy, 99 Or App 274, 782 P2d 949 (1989)

Trial court is required to make findings pursuant to this section when court imposes consecutive sentences. State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991)

It was not impossible or illogical for trial court to impose sentences for convictions of burglary, menacing and carrying dangerous weapon consecutively to death sentence. State v. Rose, 107 Or App 85, 810 P2d 1321 (1991)

This section impliedly repealed [former] ORS 137.122. State v. Duran, 108 Or App 282, 814 P2d 182 (1991)

Limits on court's discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment under this section do not apply where convictions did not arise out of continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. State v. Duran, 108 Or App 282, 814 P2d 182 (1991)

Where consecutive sentences are imposed and one sentence involves incarceration, probationary term of non-incarceration sentence merges with post-prison supervision period of incarceration sentence. State v. Dummitt, 115 Or App 487, 839 P2d 246 (1992); State v. Brown, 119 Or App 162, 849 P2d 547 (1993), as modified by 126 Or App 631, 869 P2d 904 (1994)

Court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences without making findings required by this section because defendant's possession of three weapons was not continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. State v. Padilla, 118 Or App 122, 846 P2d 437 (1993)

Nothing in sentencing guideline rules precludes dispositional departure sentences from being imposed consecutively. State v. Morales-Aguilar, 121 Or App 456, 855 P2d 646 (1993)

Court has power to prohibit counsel from informing jury of possibility that consecutive sentences will be imposed. State v. Williams, 322 Or 620, 912 P2d 364 (1996)

Disposition that child is within jurisdiction of juvenile court following juvenile adjudication is not "sentence" for purposes of imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Trice, 146 Or App 15, 933 P2d 345 (1997)

Court may impose sentence that is partially concurrent and partially consecutive to other sentence. State v. Trice, 159 Or App 1, 976 P2d 569 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Court that sentences defendant is not bound by indictment allegation that offenses were part of same act or transaction. State v. Bush, 174 Or App 280, 25 P3d 368 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Where original criminal objective continues to be present, continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct may include closely related events that manifest additional criminal objectives. State v. Kautz, 179 Or App 458, 39 P3d 937 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant knowingly admits facts that would support imposition of consecutive sentences, court may rely on admission for sentencing purposes even if admission was made for different purpose. State v. Herrera-Lopez, 204 Or App 188, 129 P3d 238 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Where multiple crimes arising out of continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct are of equal seriousness, lack of "more serious crime" does not relieve court of duty to make findings of fact supporting consecutive sentences. State v. Loftin, 218 Or App 160, 178 P3d 312 (2008), modified 228 Or App 96, 206 P3d 1208 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

To determine whether offense caused or created risk of causing harm that other offense did not, court must determine offense for which consecutive sentence is contemplated, whether real and risked harms arising from that offense differ from harms arising from other offense, and whether harms unique to that offense are greater than or qualitatively different from harms arising from other offense. State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 178 P3d 333 (2008)

Consecutive sentences may not be imposed based upon harms caused or risked by multiple offenses arising out of single act. State v. Rettmann, 218 Or App 179, 178 P3d 333 (2008)

Judicial fact-finding enabling imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate federal constitutional right to jury determination. State v. Ice, 346 Or 95, 204 P3d 1290 (2009)

Imposition of consecutive sentences on basis of facts found by court does not violate federal constitutional right to jury determination. Oregon v. Ice, 129 S Ct 711, 172 L Ed 2d 517 (2009)

Consecutive incarceration sanctions imposed as result of multiple probation violations are not consecutive sentences. State v. Newell, 238 Or App 385, 242 P3d 709 (2010)

Where defendant is sentenced to death for murder committed while defendant is serving sentence for prior crime, death sentence shall be imposed presently and not after defendant serves sentence for prior crime. State v. Haugen, 349 Or 174, 243 P3d 31 (2010)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021