Oregon Supreme Ct - August 6, 2015

by: Sean McGuire and Abassos • August 6, 2015 • no comments

Probation Revocation - Sentences Imposed Following Probation Revocation May Be Consecutive, Notwithstanding Sentencing Guidelines

Article I, section 44(1)(b) of the Oregon Constitution grants trial courts the authority to impose consecutive prison terms for a single violation of the terms of probation where there are multiple victims, notwithstanding the Sentencing Guidelines’ requirement that trial courts impose such sentences concurrently. Article I, section 44(1)(b) provides that “[n]o law shall limit a court’s authority to sentence a criminal defendant consecutively for crimes against different victims.” By contrast, OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) requires that the judge “impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently” for probation violations. The Court ultimately ruled that the sentencing guidelines are in conflict with the Constitution, and must yield.

Here, a single probation violation occurred when the defendant drank alcohol. The trial court revoked his probation and proceeded to sentence him to two consecutive groups of two concurrent prison terms for four underlying counts of encouraging child sex abuse against four different victims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the consecutive imposition and held that the imposition of sentence was actually a “sanction” for violating probation, not a criminal sentence, and thus the constitutional provision at issue did not apply. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that “[i]mposing terms of incarceration as a sanction upon probation revocation amounts to ‘sentencing . . . for crimes’ within the meaning of the constitution. Article 1, section 44(1)(b), therefore controls, and the conflicting provision of the guidelines is invalid.”

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

State v. Lane, 357 Or. 619 (2015).