State v. Holland
Opinion
Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation.
On October 7, 1974 defendant was before the court for sentencing. The court ordered that “imposition of sentence be suspended and the defendant be * * * placed on probation * * * for * * * three * * * years.” One of the terms of the probation was that defendant commit no crime. The court also ordered that defendant “be confined in the Lane County jail for a period of thirty days and that he abide by such further rules and regulations as the probation officer may prescribe.” Finally, the court “FURTHER. ORDERED that defendant be remanded to the legal and physical custody of the Lane County Sheriff’s Department.” Thereafter the court granted defendant’s request for security release pending appeal pursuant to ORS 135.250(2)(d)
[431]*431On April 18, 1975 defendant was convicted of three counts of criminal activity in drugs which prompted the court to revoke his probation on May 2, 1975. Defendant’s position on this appeal is that at the time of the drug conviction he was not on probation and therefore could not violate his probation. Defendant relies on ORS 138.135(1) which provides :
“A sentence of confinement shall be stayed if an appeal is taken, and the defendant elects not to commence service of the sentence or is admitted to bail. If a defendant is not admitted to bail and elects not to commence service of the sentence pending appeal, he shall be held in custody at the institution designated in the judgment without execution of sentence, except as provided in O.RS 138.145.” (Emphasis supplied.)
A “sentence of confinement” refers to actual incarceration. The exception provided by ORS 138.145 relates to temporary retention of custody and is inapplicable to the case at bar.
In context of the facts with which we are here concerned, “sentence” and “probation” have different meanings. Cf. ORS 137.010.
[432]*432The fact that the defendant did not serve the thirty days in jail did not mean that he was not on .probation. It was, therefore, possible for the court to find that the defendant had violated his probation.
Affirmed.
ORS 135.250(2)(d) provides:
“If the defendant is released after judgment of conviction, the conditions of the release agreement shall be that he will: <<:!: * * # ❖
“(d) Comply with such other conditions as the court may impose * *
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
542 P.2d 923 (State v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.