State v. Hanson

345 Or. App. 141

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: A184567
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 1004 November 19, 2025 141

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ZACHARY AUGUSTINE HANSON, aka Zachary Dustin Hanson, Defendant-Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 23CR57964; A184567

Robert B. Johnson, Judge. Submitted October 14, 2025. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Megan Mizuta, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 142 State v. Hanson

PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, State v. Kelemen, 296 Or App 184, 191-92, 437 P3d 1225 (2019), we affirm. Defendant does not dispute that he violated his pro- bation by consuming alcohol and crashing his parents’ car while intoxicated, as well as failing to appear for a court date. He argues, however, that his actions did not under- mine the purposes of probation justifying revocation because he demonstrated sincere readiness to address his addiction, his relapse was part of his recovery process, and he had sig- nificant time left on his probation to allow him to complete treatment programs. Defendant violated his probation and, on this record, the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking it. See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or more of the conditions of proba- tion, or that the offender has participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 296 Or App at 191 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make a trial court’s exercise of its revo- cation authority contingent on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”). Affirmed.