State v. Brand
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
Defendant appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking the terms of his probationary supervision and imposing consecutive incarceration sanctions. He argues that, because he committed a single probation violation, the court was required, by OAR 213-012-0040(2), to impose concurrent sanctions. We agree and, therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The relevant facts are procedural. On September 24, 2009, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2, unlawful delivery of a controlled substance to a minor, ORS 465.906, and Count 4 of the indictment,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific TransportationCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- State v. NewellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- State v. StokesCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
- State v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
3Cited by8 opinions
- Young v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- Plotkin v. State Accident Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
- Handy v. Lane CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
- Botts Marsh LLC v. City of WheelerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
- Botts Marsh LLC v. City of WheelerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.