Judgment and Execution

ORS 137.750
Sentencing requirements concerning defendant’s eligibility for certain types of leave, release or programs


When a court sentences a defendant to a term of incarceration upon conviction of a crime, the court shall order on the record in open court as part of the sentence imposed that the defendant may be considered by the executing or releasing authority for any form of temporary leave from custody, reduction in sentence, work release or program of conditional or supervised release authorized by law for which the defendant is otherwise eligible at the time of sentencing, unless the court finds on the record in open court substantial and compelling reasons to order that the defendant not be considered for such leave, release or program.


The executing or releasing authority may consider the defendant for a program described in subsection (1) of this section only upon order of the sentencing court appearing in the judgment.


As used in this section:


“Executing or releasing authority” means the Department of Corrections, State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Oregon Youth Authority, Psychiatric Security Review Board, sentencing court or supervisory authority.


“Supervisory authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 144.087 (“Supervisory authority” defined). [1997 c.313 §14; 2008 c.35 §2; 2011 c.708 §19; 2013 c.229 §8; 2017 c.442 §17]
Note: 137.750 (Sentencing requirements concerning defendant’s eligibility for certain types of leave, release or programs) to 137.754 (Authority of court to modify judgment to comply with ORS 137.750 and 137.752) were enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but were not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 137 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

Notes of Decisions

Application to crimes committed prior to enactment of statute, but before equivalent constitutional provision was declared void ab initio, does not increase quantum of punishment for offense in violation of ex post facto prohibition of Oregon Constitution. State v. Grimes, 163 Or App 340, 986 P2d 1290 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Judicial finding that defendant may not be considered for beneficial modification of presumptive sentence is not finding of fact that increases maximum penalty permitted for conviction. State v. Clark, 205 Or App 338, 134 P3d 1074 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court may make defendant ineligible for reduction in term of incarceration because reduction is sentence modification program, and Department of Corrections may grant reduction only if sentencing court specifically orders that defendant is eligible for reduction. State v. Berger, 284 Or App 156, 392 P3d 792 (2017)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021