Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences
Source:
Section 137.123 — Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors137.html.
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This section impliedly repealed [former] ORS 137.122.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)
Where defendant’s offense is crime against state, state is victim of offense for purposes of this section. State v. Gatewood, 300 Or App 21, 452 P3d 1046 (2019), Sup Ct review denied
Evidence showing that defendant, upon realizing that defendant had broken into wrong apartment, formed intent and willingness to commit entirely different robbery was sufficient to justify that defendant serve consecutive sentences for burglary and robbery. State v. Russell, 309 Or App 554, 482 P3d 799 (2021), Sup Ct review denied
Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for defendant’s guilty plea to charge of felony driving under influence of intoxicants and felony driving while suspended or revoked, because defendant, whose convictions were predicated on single act of driving, did not evince intent to commit more than one offense. State v. Porter, 313 Or App 565, 494 P3d 988 (2021)
Law Review Citations
23 LCLR 465 (2019)
Up to date