State v. Metzler
| Citation | 696 P.2d 576,72 Or.App. 555 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Edward Arnold METZLER, Appellant. 10-80-10127, CA A31611 (Control); 10-80-10129, CA A31612. |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Terrance P. Gough, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Thomsen, Gough & Gough, Eugene.
Thomas H. Denney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before GILLETTE, P.J., and VAN HOOMISSEN and YOUNG, JJ.
Defendant appeals a trial court order continuing his probation and extending it for an additional year. He contends that the order subjects him to a punishment greater than that to which he was susceptible when he committed the crime for which he was convicted, in violation of Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution, 1 and Article I, section 10, of the Federal Constitution. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
In 1981, defendant pled guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree. ORS 163.425. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years. Two years later, the state moved to revoke his probation. The trial court continued his probation but extended it for an additional year beyond the original five years.
At the time defendant was convicted and sentenced, ORS 137.010(3) provided:
"If the court suspends the imposition or execution of sentence, the court may also place the defendant on probation for a definite or indefinite period of not less than one nor more than five years."
After the original probation order was entered, the legislature amended ORS 137.010(3) to provide:
Or.Laws 1981, ch. 181, § 1. The trial court relied on the amended statute in extending defendant's probation.
Defendant contends that the trial court improperly subjected him to an ex post facto law. The state argues that there is no ex post facto application when a defendant's probation is extended pursuant to ORS 137.010(3), if the extension is due to a defendant's conduct after the effective date of the amended statute. We disagree.
Defendant has been subjected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burke, C-2
...Or.App. 515, 812 P.2d 443 (1991). The same logic has been applied to strike down retroactive extensions of probation. State v. Metzler, 72 Or.App. 555, 696 P.2d 576 (1985). In each of those cases, the court was called upon to determine whether the defendant was "subjected to a punishment gr......
-
Haas v. Hathaway, C-11149
...plaintiff's conduct simply triggered the execution of the sentence for the original convictions. In any event, State v. Metzler, 72 Or.App. 555, 696 P.2d 576 (1985), is directly on point and holds contrary to defendant's argument. In Metzler, the court placed the defendant on probation for ......
-
Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
...2009), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1708, 176 L. Ed. 2d 195 (2010); Bowditch, supra, 700 S.E.2d at 8; State v. Metzler, 696 P.2d 576, 577 (Or. Ct. App. 1985). Indeed, although the case did not involve the Ex Post Facto Clause, in Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 850, 126 S. C......
-
State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Marion County v. Conrad
...so because appellant was subject to no greater punishment then than he was at the time he committed the offense. See State v. Metzler, 72 Or.App. 555, 696 P.2d 576 (1985). At that time appellant could have been committed to MacLaren until he reached age 21. The order does no more than that.......