Presentence report in felony conviction cases
- when required
Source:
Section 144.791 — Presentence report in felony conviction cases; when required, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors144.html.
Notes of Decisions
Under former similar statute (ORS 144.790)
This section and ORS 137.120 are mandatory, not discretionary, and trial court was required to obtain and consider presentence report and state on record reasons for its decisions, notwithstanding waiver of presentence report by defendant. State v. Biles, 34 Or App 531, 579 P2d 259 (1978), aff’d 287 Or 63, 597 P2d 808 (1979); State v. Phillips, 312 Or App 149, 490 P3d 180 (2021), Sup Ct review denied
Where revocation of suspended sentence occurred subsequent to effective date of this section, presentence report was prerequisite to imposition of sentence. State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978)
It was error for court, prior to imposing sentence upon revocation of probation, to fail to require Corrections Division to furnish copy of presentence report. State v. Blume, 36 Or App 161, 583 P2d 34 (1978)
Presentence report requirement of this section was fulfilled where trial judge relied on 3-week old presentence report and any new relevant material that was before court. State v. Corrick, 38 Or App 247, 589 P2d 1186 (1979)
Where court did no more than order execution of previously imposed suspended sentence, it was not imposing sentence or acting as “sentencing court” within meaning of this section, and requirement of presentence report did not apply. State v. Gustafson, 38 Or App 437, 590 P2d 733 (1979)
Where there was delay between preparation of presentence report and sentencing, but defendant was in custody and no new and relevant material was omitted from report because of delay, there was no requirement under this section that presentence report be updated. State v. Gibson, 38 Or App 593, 590 P2d 797 (1979)
Presentence report relating to earlier crime without sentence recommendation for subsequent crime was insufficient under this section to sentence for later crime. State v. Wash, 39 Or App 447, 592 P2d 1035 (1979)
Where sentence had been vacated and new probation granted, pre-sentence report was required before court revoked probation and imposed sentence because court was acting as “sentencing court” within meaning of this section. State v. Hallin, 43 Or App 401, 602 P2d 1134 (1979)
Term “criminal prosecution” in Oregon Constitution Article I, section 11, includes sentencing and presentence interview requires assistance of counsel. State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 647 P2d 904 (1982)
Up to date