Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
PROBATION - Authority of probation officer
General probation condition requiring probationer to abide by directives of probation officer did not permit probation officer to create new probation obligations. Remanded for further proceedings.
Probationer was subject to general condition to “[r]eport as required and abide by the direction of the supervising officer" The officer directed probationer to complete a work crew sanction, and when he did not do so, sought revocation. The Court of Appeals explained that the probation officer could direct a probationer how to report, but other direction had to come from the court. The court also noted that probation cannot be revoked absent a violation.
State v. Kelemen 296 Or App 184 (February 21, 2019) (Lagesen) (Douglas County, Marshall)
CIVIL COMMITMENT - Results of recommitment
In recommitment proceeding, trial court did not plainly err by failing to advise that voluntary treatment and conditional release were possible outcomes. Affirmed.
State v. H.H.J 296 Or App 199 (February 21, 2019) (Lagesen) (Multnomah County, Smith-Herranz)
APPEAL AND REVIEW - Appeal from municipal court
Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review circuit court judgment following municipal court trial. Affirmed.
Defendant was found to have violated the Eugene city code by a municipal court, and appealed unsuccessfully to the circuit court. Thereafter, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to consider his constitutional arguments, and rejected them.
City of Eugene v. Hejazi 296 Or App 204 (February 21, 2019) (Lagesen) (Lane County, Merten)
PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY - Jury instructions
Trial court did not err by failing to give jury instruction on partial responsibility, because the legal effect of partial responsibility is covered by standard instructions. Affirmed.
State v. Rhodes 296 Or App 209 (February 21, 2019) (James) (Washington County, Wipper)
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY - Permissible probation terms
Juvenile court erred by imposing probation condition that juvenile probation officer could impose sanctions of confinement without a hearing in court. Remanded for further proceedings.
State v. S.S.T. 296 Or App 217 (February 21, 2019) (Per curiam) (Josephine County, Baker)