green
Positive treatment
Hot · 75 in 5y
Issue: What defendantOR ↗
Issue: State responds that any errorOR ↗
Quoted verbatim 3×
27.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…a court does not have authority to impose a condition of incarceration.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cam v. Pedro
the trial court must inquire into the cir- cumstances under which the defendant has requested a con- tinuance and demonstrate on the record that it has evalu- ated the merits of that request.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Johnson
defendant, act- ing pro se, did not explicitly ask for a continuance, but at a trial readiness hearing and at trial the court understood defendant to be asking for a continuance .
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Blaylock
(2×)
a court does not have authority to impose a condition of incarceration.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Heaton
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
There, in con- struing what it means to have been “convicted” previously for purposes of ORS 813.010(5), we concluded that a person is convicted upon a “finding of guilt.” Id. at 785-86.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Snider
See State v. Evans, 281 Or App 771, 773 , 383 P3d 444 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (exercising discretion to correct a plainly erro- neous term of post-prison supervision for similar reasons).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Snider
See State v. Evans, 281 Or App 771, 773 , 383 P3d 444 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (exercising discretion to correct a plainly erro- neous term of post-prison supervision for similar reasons).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Goode
(2×)
See State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600, 601 , 244 P3d 894 (2010) (trial court lacks authority to impose no-contact order as condition of incarceration); State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9, 11 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (exercising discretion to correct plainly erroneous no-contact provision as condition of incarceration).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Goode
(2×)
See State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600, 601 , 244 P3d 894 (2010) (trial court lacks authority to impose no-contact order as condition of incarceration); State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9, 11 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (exercising discretion to correct plainly erroneous no-contact provision as condition of incarceration).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Russin
See State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 112-13 , 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (assuming without deciding that a stipulation to a future sentence upon probation revocation is “not [a sentence] that is authorized by * * * ORS 135.407,” but holding that defendant’s stipulation is of the kind “illustrated in” ORS 135.407, and that therefore, “ORS 138.222(2) (d) bars review”). 3 ORS 137.545(5)(b) provides, in relevant part: “For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke proba- …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Russin
See State v. Silsby, 282 Or App 104, 112-13 , 386 P3d 172 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (assuming without deciding that a stipulation to a future sentence upon probation revocation is “not [a sentence] that is authorized by * * * ORS 135.407,” but holding that defendant’s stipulation is of the kind “illustrated in” ORS 135.407, and that therefore, “ORS 138.222(2) (d) bars review”). 3 ORS 137.545(5)(b) provides, in relevant part: “For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke pro- ba…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Shaffer
See State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9, 11 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (accepting the state’s concession concerning a condition of incarcera- tion that imposed a no-contact provision and exercising our discretion to correct the error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mouktabis v. Clackamas County Assessor
See Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water, 280 Or App 366, 370 , 382 P3d 598 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (“[A] person who petitions the government for redress, including by filing liti- gation, generally cannot be held liable for damages for their petitioning conduct[.]” (Emphasis added.)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Davoodian v. Rivera
See Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water, 280 Or App 366, 370 , 382 P3d 598 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explain- ing that “a person who petitions the government for redress, including by filing litigation, generally cannot be held liable for damages for their petitioning conduct, even if that conduct 206 Davoodian v. Rivera might otherwise violate the antitrust laws or other statutes, unless the petitioning activity is a sham” and that “[t]he doctrine serves to safeguard the First Amendment right to petition the government” (citing Professional Real Estate Investors…
discussed
Cited "see"
Davoodian v. Rivera
See Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water, 280 Or App 366, 370 , 382 P3d 598 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explain- ing that “a person who petitions the government for redress, including by filing litigation, generally cannot be held liable for damages for their petitioning conduct, even if that conduct 206 Davoodian v. Rivera might otherwise violate the antitrust laws or other statutes, unless the petitioning activity is a sham” and that “[t]he doctrine serves to safeguard the First Amendment right to petition the government” (citing Professional Real Estate Investors…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cowart
See State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9, 11 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (correcting similar error as plain error).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tenorio v. Bowser
Mellerio, 279 Or App at 434 (holding that harmless-error analysis in Ashkins relating to erroneous omission of a concurrence instruction simi- larly applies to question of whether trial counsel’s failure to request instruction was prejudicial for purposes of post- conviction relief); see Wilson v. Premo, 280 Or App 372, 386 , 381 P3d 921 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ramirez
See State v. Groom, 249 Or App 118, 122 , 274 P3d 876 , rev den, 352 Or 665 (2012) (describing the first two bases for search incident to arrest as justified by the need ‘to pro- tect the arresting officer in case the suspect has a weapon within reach and to prevent the suspect from reaching and destroying evidence’).” State v. Krause, 281 Or App 143, 146 , 383 P3d 307 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brunson
See State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (court lacked authority to impose condition concerning contact with victim in addition to term of imprisonment); State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600 , 244 P3d 894 (2010) (same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ledesma
See, e.g., State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explaining that the trial court lacked author- ity to impose a condition prohibiting contact with the victim in addition to term of imprisonment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ledesma
See, e.g., State v. Hall, 282 Or App 9 , 385 P3d 1225 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (explaining that the trial court lacked author- ity to impose a condition prohibiting contact with the victim in addition to term of imprisonment).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 757
Fee shifting requires the party that creates the costs to bear them.”) (Footnote omitted.)); see also Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water, 280 Or App 366, 370-71 , 382 P3d 598 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (quoting same).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Wagner
See, e.g., State v. Evans, 281 Or App 771, 772 , 383 P3d 444 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Keith
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Langmayer, 239 Or App 600, 601 , 244 P3d 894 (2010) (sentencing court erred by imposing an instruction that the defendant have “no contact” with the victim).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tokarski v. Wildfang
See, e.g., Clackamas County Oregon v. Clackamas River Water, 280 Or App 366, 370 , 382 P3d 598 (2016), rev den, 360 Or 752 (2017) (filing litigation is petitioning activity).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY CHARLES LANGMAYER, Defendant-Appellant
v.
ANTHONY CHARLES LANGMAYER, Defendant-Appellant
091789DV; A142787.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Dec 15, 2010.
244 P.3d 894
2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1618
Kenneth A. Kreuscher, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services., Michael R. Washington, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.
Schuman, Wollheim, Rosenblum.
Cited by 10 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
[*601] PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree, ORS 163.175. At sentencing, the court initially gave him the option of taking a nonmandatory, non-Measure 11 sentence with the condition that he have no contact with his wife, the victim, or, in the alternative, to take a Measure 11 sentence without a no-contact condition. After a colloquy with the victim, however, the court stated that it was imposing the non-Measure 11 sentence with the “no contact” recommendation. The actual judgment document nonetheless imposes the Measure 11 sentence and also contains the following notation:
“Sentence Instructions
“Defendant shall:
“Not have contact with victim.
“Pay restitution in an amount to be determined as ordered and pursuant to ORS 137.106(l)(b).
“Defendant shall have no contact with victim during period of incarceration.”
(Boldface in original.)
On appeal, defendant argues that the court, in its written and signed judgment, imposed a condition of incarceration, and that in so doing it exceeded its authority; only the Department of Corrections may impose a condition of incarceration. The state concedes that a court does not have authority to impose a condition of incarceration. We agree. State v. Wright, 128 Or App 88, 90, 875 P2d 1174 (1994). The state goes on to argue, however, that the court in this case did not impose a condition of incarceration; rather, it proposed a recommendation, leaving the choice to the Department of Corrections. We disagree. In determining a trial court’s intention, we look to the signed judgment and not to in-court statements. State v. Freeman, 127 Or App 640, 643, 873 P2d 1107 (1994). Here, the signed judgment gives the Department of Corrections an “instruction,” not a recommendation or suggestion. The instruction twice states that defendant “shall not” have contact. That is unambiguously an imperative, and in imposing that imperative, the court exceeded its authority.
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.