State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Jones

581 P.2d 110, 35 Or. App. 283, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2786

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 18, 1978

DocketNo. C 74-06-1643 Cr, CA 10175

StatusPublished

This text of 581 P.2d 110 (State v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jones, 581 P.2d 110, 35 Or. App. 283, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2786 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in the second degree in September, 1974. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on five years’ probation. In December, 1977, a probation revocation hearing was held in which the court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of five years’ imprisonment. No presentence report was ever prepared on the defendant; however, defendant’s probation officer did testify at the probation revocation hearing regarding the defendant’s behavior during his probation.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to obtain and consider a presentence report as required by ORS 144.790(1). The state contends that no such report was necessary (1) because the defendant’s probation officer was able to provide the court with any information that would have appeared in such a report; and (2) because ORS 144.790(1) does not require a presentence report to be prepared at the time of imposition of sentence following revocation of probation. We answered both of these contentions to the contrary in State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

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

SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary in the second degree in September, 1974. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed the defendant on five years’ probation. In December, 1977, a probation revocation hearing was held in which the court revoked defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of five years’ imprisonment. No presentence report was ever prepared on the defendant; however, defendant’s probation officer did testify at the probation revocation hearing regarding the defendant’s behavior during his probation.

On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to obtain and consider a presentence report as required by ORS 144.790(1). The state contends that no such report was necessary (1) because the defendant’s probation officer was able to provide the court with any information that would have appeared in such a report; and (2) because ORS 144.790(1) does not require a presentence report to be prepared at the time of imposition of sentence following revocation of probation. We answered both of these contentions to the contrary in State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978).

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 P.2d 110, 35 Or. App. 283, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-orctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack