criminal history rule in Oregon

2023Id. (citing State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558 , 565 n 4, 533 P2d 795 (1975), and State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 595 , 596 P2d 1278 (1979)).

2018Id. (stating that "[i]f a defendant is charged with the possession of drugs, some of which had been acquired at one time and the rest at another time, it would seem clear that he would be entitled to object to multiple prosecutions"). 11 And, as explained, the drafters of the criminal history rule intended that, when a defendant was being sentenced for such crimes, a conviction for one would not increase the defendant's criminal history *656 score on the others.

2023Id. (citing State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558 , 565 n 4, 533 P2d 795 (1975), and State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 595 , 596 P2d 1278 (1979)).

2023Id. (citing State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558 , 565 n 4, 533 P2d 795 (1975), and State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 595 , 596 P2d 1278 (1979)).

2023Id. (citing State v. Boyd, 271 Or 558 , 565 n 4, 533 P2d 795 (1975), and State v. Cloutier, 286 Or 579, 595 , 596 P2d 1278 (1979)).

2018For the answer to that question, we look to this court's decisions in Bucholz , State v. Miller , 317 Or. 297 , 855 P.2d 1093 (1993), and Cuevas , in which this court construed the criminal history rule.

2018For the answer to that question, we look to this court's decisions in Bucholz , State v. Miller , 317 Or. 297 , 855 P.2d 1093 (1993), and Cuevas , in which this court construed the criminal history rule.

2018It states: "[T]he offender's criminal history is to include all prior convictions * * * entered against the offender 'at the time the current crime or crimes of conviction [are] sentenced.' "This reference to 'current crime or crimes of conviction' was intended to prohibit the consideration of convictions arising from the current proceeding in classification of the offender's criminal history." Id. (emphasis added; citation omitted). 7 Based on the legislative history of the criminal history rule, the Court of Appeals held that, because the **663 defendant's theft conviction and drug convictio

2018The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that "the legislative history [of the criminal history rule] demonstrates a legislative intent that convictions sentenced at the same time are present convictions that are not counted in the criminal history, irrespective of rules governing prior criminal history." State v. Bucholz , 113 Or.

2013Sparks predates that rule and pertains to the application of the “200 percent” and “shift to column I” rules to consecutive sentences. 150 Or App at 296 .

2013We are likewise unpersuaded by the state’s resort to State v. Kessler, 297 Or 460, 466 , 686 P2d 345 (1984) — a case that predates the sentencing guidelines by several years and, as the dissent concedes, does not discuss the criminal history rule at all but, rather, involves a different issue altogether (whether to merge convictions for purposes of a cumulative sentence).

2013We are likewise unpersuaded by the state’s resort to State v. Kessler, 297 Or 460, 466 , 686 P2d 345 (1984) — a case that predates the sentencing guidelines by several years and, as the dissent concedes, does not discuss the criminal history rule at all but, rather, involves a different issue altogether (whether to merge convictions for purposes of a cumulative sentence).

2013Under Oregon courts’ current interpretation of the criminal history rule, a sentencing court may not use a conviction as criminal history when calculating the sentence for another conviction from the same proceeding unless the underlying offenses arose from separate and distinct “criminal episodes.” Bucholz, 317 Or at 317 ; State v. Witherspoon, 250 Or App 316, 321 , 280 P3d 1004 (2012).

2013Under Oregon courts’ current interpretation of the criminal history rule, a sentencing court may not use a conviction as criminal history when calculating the sentence for another conviction from the same proceeding unless the underlying offenses arose from separate and distinct “criminal episodes.” Bucholz, 317 Or at 317 ; State v. Witherspoon, 250 Or App 316, 321 , 280 P3d 1004 (2012).

2013It appears from this that the trial court may have conflated ORS 131.505(4), defining “same criminal episode,” with ORS 161.067(3), which does not pertain to the criminal history rule or the definition of “same criminal episode” but does withhold merger of offenses where “a sufficient pause in the defendant’s criminal conduct *** afford[ed] the defendant an opportunity to renounce the criminal intent.” As we noted above in our reference to Potter, 245 Or App at 6 , the question of what constitutes a “criminal episode” is relevant to several areas of criminal law.

2013This court has observed that “criminal episode” is a term that “has been used in so many diverse statutory and constitutional contexts within the criminal law that its precise meaning in any given context, much less its origins, is not always clear.” State v. Potter, 245 Or App 1, 6 , 260 P3d 815 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 586 (2012); see also State v. Bryant, 245 Or App 519, 522 , 263 P3d 368 (2011) (“[T]he term ‘criminal episode’ appears in many different contexts, and its meaning can vary with the context in which it is used.”).

2013This court has observed that “criminal episode” is a term that “has been used in so many diverse statutory and constitutional contexts within the criminal law that its precise meaning in any given context, much less its origins, is not always clear.” State v. Potter, 245 Or App 1, 6 , 260 P3d 815 (2011), rev den, 351 Or 586 (2012); see also State v. Bryant, 245 Or App 519, 522 , 263 P3d 368 (2011) (“[T]he term ‘criminal episode’ appears in many different contexts, and its meaning can vary with the context in which it is used.”).