Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.886 (2026)

Requirements for diversion; factors considered

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

135.886 Requirements for diversion; factors considered. (1) After an accusatory instrument has been filed charging a defendant with commission of a crime other than driving while under the influence of intoxicants as defined in ORS 813.010, and after the district attorney has considered the factors listed in subsection (2) of this section, if it appears to the district attorney that diversion of the defendant would be in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney may propose a diversion agreement to the defendant the terms of which are established by the district attorney in conformance with ORS 135.891. A diversion agreement under this section is not available to a defendant charged with the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicants as defined in ORS 813.010.

(2) In determining whether diversion of a defendant is in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney shall consider at least the following factors:

(a) The nature of the offense; however, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the offense must not have involved physical injury to another person;

(b) Any special characteristics or difficulties of the offender;

(c) Whether the defendant is a first-time offender; if the offender has previously participated in diversion, according to the certification of the Department of Justice, diversion may not be offered;

(d) Whether there is a probability that the defendant will cooperate with and benefit from alternative treatment;

(e) Whether the available program is appropriate to the needs of the offender;

(f) The impact of diversion upon the community;

(g) Recommendations, if any, of the involved law enforcement agency;

(h) Recommendations, if any, of the victim;

(i) Provisions for restitution; and

(j) Any mitigating circumstances.

(3) In determining whether diversion of a defendant who is a servicemember is in the interests of justice and of benefit to the defendant and the community, the district attorney shall consider all of the factors listed in subsection (2) of this section, including the nature of the offense, except that diversion may not be offered if the offense:

(a) Involved serious physical injury to another person;

(b) Is classified as a Class A or B felony and involved physical injury to another person;

(d) Involved domestic violence as defined in ORS 135.230 and, at the time the offense was committed, the defendant was subject to a protective order in favor of the victim of the offense.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Physical injury” and “serious physical injury” have the meanings given those terms in ORS 161.015.

(b) “Protective order” means:

(A) An order issued under ORS 30.866, 107.700 to 107.735, 124.005 to 124.040 or 163.730 to 163.750; or

(B) A condition of probation, parole or post-prison supervision, or a release agreement under ORS 135.250, that prohibits the defendant from contacting the victim. [1977 c.373 §2; 1981 c.64 §1; 1981 c.803 §2; 1983 c.338 §889; 2010 c.25 §2]

135.890 [Repealed by 1973 c.836 §358]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1979–1987 · leading case: State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 5× “886 created a right in him to be considered for diversion, the Court of Appeals of Oregon held: “If a district attorney’s decision is discretionary, he necessarily must have authority to regard any particular factor or combination of factors — including but not necessarily…”

State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Haas, 602 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 9× “The parties’ principal disagreement is over the eaning of ORS 135.886, which provides: "(1) After an accusatory instrument has been filed charging a defendant with commission of a crime, and after the district attorney has considered the factors listed in subsection (2) of this…”

State Ex Rel. Harmon v. Blanding, 644 P.2d 1082 (Or. 1982). “ORS 135.886 governs the initiation of diversion.”

State v. Vest, 744 P.2d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “050(4) specifically provides for the appointment of counsel for hearings regarding enhanced sentences, extradition and probation.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.886(2) — 2 cases

State v. Greenlee, 620 P.2d 1132 (Kan. 1980). “886 created a right in him to be considered for diversion, the Court of Appeals of Oregon held: “If a district attorney’s decision is discretionary, he necessarily must have authority to regard any particular factor or combination of factors — including but not necessarily…”

State Ex Rel. Anderson v. Haas, 602 P.2d 346 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The parties’ principal disagreement is over the eaning of ORS 135.886, which provides: "(1) After an accusatory instrument has been filed charging a defendant with commission of a crime, and after the district attorney has considered the factors listed in subsection (2) of this…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.886(2)(a) — 2 cases

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.