State v. Hollingsworth, 784 P.2d 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Hollingsworth, 784 P.2d 1108 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Oregon
v.
Kenneth Ray Hollingsworth
88-CR-0438; CA A51231.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Dec 28, 1989.
Published opinion
784 P.2d 1108
1989 Ore. App. LEXIS 2098
Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem., Vera Langer, Deputy Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Edmonds, Graber, Riggs.
Published
PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of felony driving while revoked and was placed on probation. ORS 811.182. He was subsequently found in violation of certain conditions of probation but was continued on probation over his objection. He appeals and argues that the court was without authority to do that. See State v. Carmickle, 307 Or 1, 762 P2d 290 (1988); State v. Benway, 97 Or App 685, 776 P2d 880 (1989).

The state argues that defendant’s original election was binding. That argument, although not raised, was implicitly rejected in State v. Benway, supra, in which we held that a criminal defendant’s right to refuse probation applies to a court-ordered continuation of probation.[1]

Order continuing probation reversed; remanded for sentencing.

1

We note that the probation hearing took place before the effective date of ORS 137.010(4), which precludes a defendant’s right to refuse probation. The legislative history does not indicate an intent that ORS 137.010(4) apply retroactively. Accordingly, we do not consider the effect of that statute.