137.010 Duty
of court to ascertain and impose punishment. (1) The statutes that define offenses impose a duty
upon the court having jurisdiction to pass sentence in accordance with this
section or, for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, in accordance
with rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission unless otherwise
specifically provided by law.
(2) If it cannot
be determined whether the felony was committed on or after November 1, 1989,
the defendant shall be sentenced as if the felony had been committed prior to
November 1, 1989.
(3) Except when a
person is convicted of a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989, if the
court is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the public as well
as of the defendant, the court may suspend the imposition or execution of any part
of a sentence for any period of not more than five years. The court may extend
the period of suspension beyond five years in accordance with subsection (4) of
this section.
(4) If the court
suspends the imposition or execution of a part of a sentence for an offense
other than a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court may also
impose and execute a sentence of probation on the defendant for a definite or
indefinite period of not more than five years. However, upon a later finding
that a defendant sentenced to probation for a felony has violated a condition
of the probation and in lieu of revocation, the court may order the period of
both the suspended sentence and the sentence of probation extended until a date
not more than six years from the date of original imposition of sentence. Time
during which the probationer has absconded from supervision and a bench warrant
has been issued for the probationer’s arrest shall not be counted in
determining the time elapsed since imposition of the sentence of probation.
(5) If the court
announces that it intends to suspend imposition or execution of any part of a
sentence, the defendant may, at that time, object and request imposition of the
full sentence. In no case, however, does the defendant have a right to refuse the
court’s order, and the court may suspend imposition or execution of a part of
the sentence despite the defendant’s objection or request. If the court further
announces that it intends to sentence the defendant to a period of probation,
the defendant may, at that time, object and request that a sentence of
probation or its conditions not be imposed or that different conditions be
imposed. In no case, however, does the defendant have the right to refuse a
sentence of probation or any of the conditions of the probation, and the court
may sentence the defendant to probation subject to conditions despite the
defendant’s objection or request.
(6) The power of
the judge of any court to suspend execution of any part of a sentence or to
sentence any person convicted of a crime to probation shall continue until the
person is delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections.
(7) When a person
is convicted of an offense and the court does not suspend the imposition or
execution of any part of a sentence or when a suspended sentence or sentence of
probation is revoked, the court shall impose the following sentence:
(a) A term of
imprisonment;
(b) A fine;
(c) Both
imprisonment and a fine; or
(d) Discharge of
the defendant.
(8) This section
does not deprive the court of any authority conferred by law to enter a
judgment for the forfeiture of property, suspend or cancel a license, remove a
person from office or impose any other civil penalty. An order exercising that
authority may be included as part of the judgment of conviction.
(9) When imposing
sentence for a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court shall
submit sentencing information to the commission in accordance with rules of the
commission.
(10) A judgment
of conviction that includes a term of imprisonment for a felony committed on or
after November 1, 1989, shall state the length of incarceration and the length
of post-prison supervision. The judgment of conviction shall also provide that if
the defendant violates the conditions of post-prison supervision, the defendant
shall be subject to sanctions including the possibility of additional
imprisonment in accordance with rules of the commission. [Amended by 1971 c.743
§322; 1981 c.181 §1; 1987 c.320 §27; 1989 c.790 §6; 1989 c.849 §1; 1993 c.14 §1;
2003 c.576 §388; 2005 c.10 §2]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. Jacobs, 669 P.2d 1128 (Or. 1983).
· cites it 11× “At issue is the extent of a circuit court judge’s sentencing authority under ORS 137.010(4), which reads as follows: “The power of the judge of any court to suspend execution of sentence or to grant probation to any person convicted of a crime shall continue until the person is…”
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 16× “669; ORS 137.010(1). At this time, no comparable legislation applies to sentencing for misdemeanor convictions.”
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s $100 bench probation fee was part of his sentence and, under ORS 137.010, the trial court had the authority to suspend execution of that portion of the sentence.”
State v. Carmickle, 762 P.2d 290 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 6× “" We hold that an order of probation is appealable as a judgment on conviction and the appeal or review is not limited to whether it exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual as in the case of a sentence. The History of Probation In Oregon.”
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Arguably it satisfies the court's obligation to sentence under ORS 137.010. However, aside from the inexactness it introduces in the use of "merger," see 21 Or.”
State v. Easton, 126 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 7× “The Supreme Court held that ORS 137.010 precluded the trial court from modifying the sentence in that case, because the offender had been delivered to the custody of the Corrections Division.”
Holcomb v. Sunderland, 894 P.2d 457 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 4× “” This statement is supported by reference to ORS chapter 137, which “clearly separates” the two; (c) probation is an “alternative” to the imposition of a sentence, with citation to ORS 137.010 as support; (d) the statutes at issue had been amended several times, and the…”
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “A reading of the rule as close-ended and confining of judicial discretion is consistent with statutes that authorize and limit judicial decisions about sentencing and probation.”
State v. Curran, 628 P.2d 1198 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 4× “ORS 137.010 is found in that group of code sections dealing with sentencing and judgment on conviction.”
State v. Anderson, 833 P.2d 321 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “That bill became House Bill 2470, [1] which was passed by the House and sent to the Senate, where it was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The State Court Administrator then suggested the amendments to ORS 138.”
State v. Morgan, 856 P.2d 612 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 3× “ORS 137.010(1) provides: “The statutes that define offenses impose a duty upon the court having jurisdiction to pass sentence in accordance with this section or, for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, in accordance with rules of the State Sentencing Guidelines…”
State v. Kragt, 495 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 4× “, ORS 137.010; OAR 213-004-0002; OAR 213-005-0002.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(1) — 34 cases
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“A reading of the rule as close-ended and confining of judicial discretion is consistent with statutes that authorize and limit judicial decisions about sentencing and probation.”
State v. Morgan, 856 P.2d 612 (Or. 1993).
“ORS 137.010(1) provides: “The statutes that define offenses impose a duty upon the court having jurisdiction to pass sentence in accordance with this section or, for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, in accordance with rules of the State Sentencing Guidelines…”
State v. Kragt, 495 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2021).
“, ORS 137.010; OAR 213-004-0002; OAR 213-005-0002.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(10) — 10 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(2) — 9 cases
State v. Carmickle, 762 P.2d 290 (Or. 1988).
“" We hold that an order of probation is appealable as a judgment on conviction and the appeal or review is not limited to whether it exceeds the maximum allowable by law or is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual as in the case of a sentence. The History of Probation In Oregon.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(3) — 22 cases
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s $100 bench probation fee was part of his sentence and, under ORS 137.010, the trial court had the authority to suspend execution of that portion of the sentence.”
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“669; ORS 137.010(1). At this time, no comparable legislation applies to sentencing for misdemeanor convictions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(4) — 31 cases
State Ex Rel. O'Leary v. Jacobs, 669 P.2d 1128 (Or. 1983).
“At issue is the extent of a circuit court judge’s sentencing authority under ORS 137.010(4), which reads as follows: “The power of the judge of any court to suspend execution of sentence or to grant probation to any person convicted of a crime shall continue until the person is…”
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“669; ORS 137.010(1). At this time, no comparable legislation applies to sentencing for misdemeanor convictions.”
State v. Baccaro, 452 P.3d 1022 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s $100 bench probation fee was part of his sentence and, under ORS 137.010, the trial court had the authority to suspend execution of that portion of the sentence.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(5) — 10 cases
State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278 (Or. 1979).
“Arguably it satisfies the court's obligation to sentence under ORS 137.010. However, aside from the inexactness it introduces in the use of "merger," see 21 Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(5)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(5)(d) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(6) — 10 cases
State v. Curran, 628 P.2d 1198 (Or. 1981).
“ORS 137.010 is found in that group of code sections dealing with sentencing and judgment on conviction.”
State v. Easton, 126 P.3d 1256 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“The Supreme Court held that ORS 137.010 precluded the trial court from modifying the sentence in that case, because the offender had been delivered to the custody of the Corrections Division.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(7) — 19 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(7)(a) — 1 case
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“669; ORS 137.010(1). At this time, no comparable legislation applies to sentencing for misdemeanor convictions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(7)(b) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(7)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Rice, 836 P.2d 731 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“669; ORS 137.010(1). At this time, no comparable legislation applies to sentencing for misdemeanor convictions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.010(8) — 1 case
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.