135.753 Effect
of dismissal. (1)
If the court directs the charge or action to be dismissed, the defendant, if in
custody, shall be discharged. If the defendant has been released, the release
agreement is exonerated and security deposited shall be refunded to the
defendant.
(2) An order for
the dismissal of a charge or action, as provided in ORS 135.703 to 135.709 and
135.745 to 135.757, is a bar to another prosecution for the same crime if the
crime is a Class B or C misdemeanor; but it is not a bar if the crime charged
is a Class A misdemeanor, a misdemeanor described in ORS 475.896 or a felony.
(3) If any charge
or action is dismissed for the purpose of consolidation with one or more other
charges or actions, then any such dismissal shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense. [Formerly 134.140; 1975 c.198 §1; 2024 c.70 §46a]
Notes of Decisions
Application of Haynes (1980)
or · cites it 6×
“ORS 135.753(2). [4] And the release during continuance prescribed by ORS 135.”
State v. Dykast (1985)
or · cites it 4×
“See ORS 135.753(2). [2] In the trial court and on appeal, the defendant did not cite or rely upon ORS 135.”
State v. Emery (1994)
or · cites it 3×
“ORS 135.753(2) provides that an order of dismissal pursuant to ORS 135.”
State v. Freeland (1983)
or · cites it 2×
“745, the "dismissal [of a] charge or action," ORS 135.753, or the "proceedings," ORS 135.”
State v. Garcia (2022)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“” ORS 135.753(2). However, if a charge or action is dismissed for purposes of consolidation with another charge or action, “such dismissal shall not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.”
State v. Dinsmore (2005)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“ORS 135.753 explains the effect of a dismissal by the trial court: “(1) If the court directs the charge or action to be dismissed, the defendant, if in custody, shall be discharged.”
State v. Johnson (2005)
or
“” Finally, ORS 135.753(2) provides that an order of dismissal pursuant to ORS 135.”
State v. Harberts (2000)
or · cites it 2×
“See ORS 135.753(2) (dismissal of charge under ORS 135.”
State v. McCormick (1977)
or · cites it 2×
“ORS 135.753(2). The court also found that Sutton had waived his right to a dismissal because he filed no motion to dismiss until 16 days after the indictment was found.”
State v. Robinson (1999)
orctapp · cites it 3×
“ORS 135.753 explains the effects of a dismissal under ORS 135.”
State v. Davids (2005)
or
“That court first determined that, in light of the 11 and one-half month delay in the warrant service, the state had not brought defendant to trial within a “reasonable period of time” under ORS 135.747 and that dismissal of the indictment consequently was required.”
State v. Purdom (2008)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“747, and ORS 135.753(2). The legislature intended those statutes to *522 provide a “housekeeping mechanism” and “a method for dismissing cases that are languishing in the criminal justice system without affecting the state’s ability to re-prosecute serious charges.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.753(2) — 31 cases
Application of Haynes (1980)
or
“ORS 135.753(2). [4] And the release during continuance prescribed by ORS 135.”
State v. Dykast (1985)
or
“See ORS 135.753(2). [2] In the trial court and on appeal, the defendant did not cite or rely upon ORS 135.”
State v. Emery (1994)
or
“ORS 135.753(2) provides that an order of dismissal pursuant to ORS 135.”
State v. Johnson (2005)
or
“” Finally, ORS 135.753(2) provides that an order of dismissal pursuant to ORS 135.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.753(3) — 1 case
State v. Garcia (2022)
orctapp
“” ORS 135.753(2). However, if a charge or action is dismissed for purposes of consolidation with another charge or action, “such dismissal shall not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.