State v. Potter
This text of 816 P.2d 661 (State v. Potter) 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.
Opinion
Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. ORS 163.425. In addition to sentencing him to consecutive five-year sentences for the two offenses, the trial court also ordered that, while incarcerated, he receive treatment in the Forensic Sex Offender Program and that “post-prison supervision shall include conditions of polygraph, no use of intoxicants, continued mental health treatment,” as well as not associating with certain people, including the victim. Although defendant did not object to the sentences below, we nonetheless consider his claim that the trial court erred in ordering the conditions of incarceration and parole, because the errors are apparent on the face of the record. ORAP 5.45(2); State v. Edwards, 103 Or App 410, 797 P2d 402 (1990); State v. Braughton, 28 Or App 891, 561 P2d 1040 (1977).
Defendant is correct that the trial court has no authority to impose conditions of incarceration or parole. ORS 137.010(7); State v. Edwards, supra. The state urges us to consider the orders as recommendations to the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole. We decline to do that. On remand, the court may, if it deems it appropriate, make specific recommendations for in-custody treatment and conditions of parole.
Convictions affirmed; portion of sentence ordering treatment during incarceration and establishing conditions of post-prison supervision vacated; remanded for resentencing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
816 P.2d 661, 108 Or. App. 480, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-potter-orctapp-1991.