Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.290 (2026)

Limit on custody of defendant prior to trial; release if limit exceeded

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      136.290 Limit on custody of defendant prior to trial; release if limit exceeded. (1) Except as provided in ORS 136.295, a defendant shall not remain in custody pending commencement of the trial of the defendant more than 60 days after the time of arrest unless the trial is continued with the express consent of the defendant. Absent the consent of the defendant or an extension under ORS 136.295, the court shall order that the trial of the defendant commence within 60 days after arrest if the state is prepared to proceed to trial.

      (2) If a trial is not commenced within the period required by subsection (1) of this section, the court shall release the defendant on the own recognizance of the defendant, or in the custody of a third party, or upon whatever additional reasonable terms and conditions the court deems just as provided in ORS 135.230 to 135.290. [1971 c.323 §§3,4; 1973 c.836 §235; 1999 c.923 §1; amendments by 1999 c.923 §3 repealed by 2001 c.870 §19]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024). · cites it 114× “ORS 136.290 establishes a 60-day limit on how long a defendant “may remain in custody pending commence- ment of the trial of the defendant.”
S060295 State v. McDowell, 279 P.3d 198 (Or. 2012). · cites it 11× “He contends that he is entitled to release under ORS 136.290, which provides, in part, that a criminal defendant “shall not remain in custody pending commencement of the trial of the defendant more than 60 days after the time of arrest.”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024). · cites it 114× “ORS 136.290 establishes a 60-day limit on how long a defendant “may remain in custody pending commence- ment of the trial of the defendant.”
State v. Chelemedos, 398 P.3d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “Defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for defendant’s release pursuant to ORS 136.290, the 60-day rule. 1 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, defense counsel presented evidence that defendant had been detained for 90 days.”
Collins v. Foster, 698 P.2d 953 (Or. 1985). · cites it 15× “295: “(1) ORS 136.290 does not apply to persons charged with crimes which are not releaseable offenses under ORS 135.”
State v. Potter, 234 P.3d 1073 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “295(1) (“ORS 136.290 does not apply to * * * prisoners serving sentences resulting from prior convictions.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Lasswell, 673 P.2d 855 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “Under ORS 136.290, the defendant must be tried within 60 days or released on his own recognizance.”
State v. Guerrero, 373 P.3d 1127 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The state also argues that defendant’s case is controlled by our decisions in Spry and Hussin , both of which involved defendants who serially sought new counsel because of dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. In Spry, five attorneys had been appointed to represent the…”
State v. Iverson, 57 P.3d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “For instance, ORS 136.290 requires the release of a defendant in custody if the “trial” does not commence within 60 days after the defendant’s arrest.”
Rodriguez-Moreno v. State of Oregon, 145 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Petitioner alleges that trial counsel had the obligation to complete an investigation within the 60-day time requirement of ORS 136.290, and that the failure to do so in this case constitutes inadequate representation.”
State v. Hilton, 69 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “On September 11, defendant waived in writing his right under ORS 136.290 to have the case brought to trial within 60 days of his arrest.”
Hamel v. Johnson, 998 P.2d 661 (Or. 2000). “Foster, 299 Or 90, 94 , 698 P2d 953 (1985) (under release provision of ORS 136.290, “shall release” is mandatory, affording no discretion); see also Greenholtz v.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.290(1) — 10 cases
State v. Forsyth, 188 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
S060295 State v. McDowell, 279 P.3d 198 (Or. 2012). “He contends that he is entitled to release under ORS 136.290, which provides, in part, that a criminal defendant “shall not remain in custody pending commencement of the trial of the defendant more than 60 days after the time of arrest.”
State v. Potter, 234 P.3d 1073 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “295(1) (“ORS 136.290 does not apply to * * * prisoners serving sentences resulting from prior convictions.”
Rodriguez-Moreno v. State of Oregon, 145 P.3d 256 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Petitioner alleges that trial counsel had the obligation to complete an investigation within the 60-day time requirement of ORS 136.290, and that the failure to do so in this case constitutes inadequate representation.”
State v. Hilton, 69 P.3d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “On September 11, defendant waived in writing his right under ORS 136.290 to have the case brought to trial within 60 days of his arrest.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.290(2) — 9 cases
State v. Chelemedos, 398 P.3d 415 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “Defense counsel subsequently filed a motion for defendant’s release pursuant to ORS 136.290, the 60-day rule. 1 At the hearing on defendant’s motion, defense counsel presented evidence that defendant had been detained for 90 days.”
State v. Iverson, 57 P.3d 953 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “For instance, ORS 136.290 requires the release of a defendant in custody if the “trial” does not commence within 60 days after the defendant’s arrest.”
State v. Potter, 234 P.3d 1073 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “295(1) (“ORS 136.290 does not apply to * * * prisoners serving sentences resulting from prior convictions.”
Benjamin v. O'Donnell, 372 Or. 764 (Or. 2024). “ORS 136.290 establishes a 60-day limit on how long a defendant “may remain in custody pending commence- ment of the trial of the defendant.”
State v. Spry, 999 P.2d 485 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
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.