State v. Hollingsworth

784 P.2d 1108, 100 Or. App. 62, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 2098
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided December 28, 1989·No. 88-CR-0438; CA A51231·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of felony driving while revoked and was placed on probation. ORS 811.182. He was subsequently found in violation of certain conditions of probation but was continued on probation over his objection. He appeals and argues that the court was without authority to do that. See State v. Carmickle, 307 Or 1, 762 P2d 290 (1988); State v. Benway, 97 Or App 685, 776 P2d 880 (1989).

The state argues that defendant’s original election was binding. That argument, although not raised, was implicitly rejected in State v. Benway, supra, in which we held that a criminal defendant’s right to refuse probation applies to a court-ordered continuation of probation.1

Order continuing probation reversed; remanded for sentencing.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Hollingsworth, 784 P.2d 1108, 100 Or. App. 62, 1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 2098 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

784 P.2d 1108 (State v. Hollingsworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Carmickle
762 P.2d 290 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Benway
776 P.2d 880 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1989)