State v. Monahan
Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
Citation | 564 P.2d 1374,29 Or.App. 791 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. William Charles MONAHAN, Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
W. Machael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LEE and JOHNSON, JJ.
Defendant's appeal presents the question of whether a trial court has authority under ORS 137.550, after revoking probation, to impose a sentence to run consecutive to a sentence imposed during probation for a crime committed during probation.
ORS 137.550(2) provides:
'* * * (T)he court, after summary hearing, may revoke the probation and suspension of sentence and cause the sentence imposed to be executed or, If no sentence has been imposed, impose any sentence which originally could have been imposed. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant contends that the consecutive sentence imposed could not have been imposed 'originally' because it is to follow a sentence which was not yet in existence at the time defendant was placed on probation. To accept such a contention would in many instances render meaningless a court's authority to impose sentence following probation revocation. As the state persuasively argues, under defendant's interpretation of ORS 137.550(2):
The phrase in question does not prevent the revoking court in imposing sentence from considering changed factual conditions. Indeed, the very logic behind permitting the court to place a defendant on probation with imposition of sentence suspended is to postpone imposition of sentence until its necessity and form may be indicated, if at all, by future conditions. Sentence for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson
...P.2d 70), Colorado (People v. Lorenzo, 644 P.2d 50 ), Maryland (Kaylor v. State, 285 Md. 66, 400 A.2d 419) and Oregon (State v. Monahan, 29 Or.App. 791, 564 P.2d 1374) have similarly construed their statutes as authorizing the imposition of consecutive sentences in such circumstances (see, ......
-
State v. Walker
...to impose a sentence running consecutively to the sentence imposed for the new crime committed during probation. 1 State v. Monahan, 29 Or.App. 791, 564 P.2d 1374 (1977). Defendant contends that any jail time imposed as a condition of probation must be ordered served at the beginning of a p......
-
People v. Lorenzo, 80CA1053
...was originally placed on probation, and they do not mandate concurrent rather than consecutive sentencing. See State v. Monahan, 29 Or.App. 791, 564 P.2d 1374 (1977). Here, consecutive sentencing is an appropriate mechanism for imposing a distinct punishment for each of two criminal acts. U......
-
State v. McBride
...had authority to impose a sentence on Count III to run consecutively to the Clackamas County sentence. ORS 137.123; State v. Monahan, 29 Or.App. 791, 564 P.2d 1374 (1977). Sentence on Counts I and II vacated; remanded for resentencing; otherwise ...