State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Thompson

703 P.2d 1037, 74 Or. App. 606, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 3513

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 17, 1985

Docket83-1354; CA A34121

StatusPublished

This text of 703 P.2d 1037 (State v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 703 P.2d 1037, 74 Or. App. 606, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 3513 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks modification of the probation order made in connection with her sentence for felony driving while suspended. ORS 487.560. Specifically, she challenges that portion of the order which prohibits her from having contact with her former husband or remarrying without the written permission of her probation officer. In State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 589, 580 P2d 536 (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the trial court must make specific findings establishing that the conditions of probation are appropriate to the offense. See ORS 138.050. The state concedes that those findings were not made in this case. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in fashioning the probation order as it did.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant seeks modification of the probation order made in connection with her sentence for felony driving while suspended. ORS 487.560. Specifically, she challenges that portion of the order which prohibits her from having contact with her former husband or remarrying without the written permission of her probation officer. In State v. Martin, 282 Or 583, 589, 580 P2d 536 (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the trial court must make specific findings establishing that the conditions of probation are appropriate to the offense. See ORS 138.050. The state concedes that those findings were not made in this case. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in fashioning the probation order as it did.

Sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

703 P.2d 1037, 74 Or. App. 606, 1985 Ore. App. LEXIS 3513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thompson-orctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack