135.881
Definitions for ORS 135.881 to 135.901. As used in ORS 135.881 to 135.901:
(1) “District
attorney” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005.
(2) “Diversion”
means referral of a defendant in a criminal case to a supervised performance
program prior to adjudication.
(3) “Diversion
agreement” means the specification of formal terms and conditions which a
defendant must fulfill in order to have the charges against the defendant
dismissed.
(4) “Servicemember”
means a person who:
(a) Is a member
of the Armed Forces of the United States, the reserve components of the Armed
Forces of the United States or the National Guard; or
(b)(A) Served as
a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, the reserve components of
the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard; and
(B) Received an
honorable discharge, a general discharge under honorable conditions or a
discharge under other than honorable conditions. [1977 c.373 §1; 2010 c.25 §1]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Harmon v. Blanding, 644 P.2d 1082 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” Among the many recitals in that document, it recites that it is understood and agreed between the defendant, her attorney and the district attorney that the criminal proceedings will be stayed for diversion pursuant to ORS 135.881 et seq., “[t]hat at any time prosecution may…”
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Haas, 602 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff, who has been indicted and is awaiting ial for a Class A felony, brought this mandamus roceeding to compel defendant, the Multnomah ounty District Attorney, to consider plaintiff for disrsion pursuant to ORS 135.881 et seq, as an altema-ve to prosecution at the present…”
State v. Roberts, 374 Or. 821 (Or. 2026).
“709 (civil compromises); ORS 135.881 - ORS 135.925 (diversion agreements); ORS 813.”
State v. Graves, 648 P.2d 866 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
“450 et seq and ORS 135.881 et seq. We affirm. Prior to trial, defendant moved the court for drug diversion in lieu of prosecution.”
State v. Clark, 615 P.2d 1043 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“Haas, 43 Or App 169 , 602 P2d 346 (1979), rev den 288 Or 493 (1980), we held that when the diversion statute, ORS 135.881 et seq., gave the prose *392 cutor discretion in proposing a diversion plan for a defendant, a particular defendant could not insist on statutory or…”
State v. Craigen, 454 P.3d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“996(1)(a)); OAR 213-008-0002(1)(a)(J) (cross-referencing definition of servicemember as defined in ORS 135.881). Given that context, we would not ordinarily incorporate a statutory definition into an administrative rule where the CJC had not done so on its own accord.”
State v. McClour, 487 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“150127CR, the court termi- nated defendant’s diversion agreement under ORS 135.881 to 135.901 and entered defendant’s previously tendered plea of no contest.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.881(2) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Haas, 602 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Plaintiff, who has been indicted and is awaiting ial for a Class A felony, brought this mandamus roceeding to compel defendant, the Multnomah ounty District Attorney, to consider plaintiff for disrsion pursuant to ORS 135.881 et seq, as an altema-ve to prosecution at the present…”
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.