137.079
Presentence report; other writings considered in imposing sentence; disclosure
to parties; court’s authority to except parts from disclosure. (1) A copy of the presentence
report and all other written information concerning the defendant that the
court considers in the imposition of sentence shall be made available to the
district attorney, the defendant or defendant’s counsel at least five judicial
days before the sentencing of the defendant. All other written information,
when received by the court outside the presence of counsel, shall either be
summarized by the court in a memorandum available for inspection or summarized
by the court on the record before sentence is imposed.
(2) The court may
except from disclosure parts of the presentence report or other written
information described in subsection (1) of this section which are not relevant
to a proper sentence, diagnostic opinions which might seriously disrupt a
program of rehabilitation if known by the defendant, or sources of information
which were obtainable with an expectation of confidentiality.
(3) If parts of
the presentence report or other written information described in subsection (1)
of this section are not disclosed under subsection (2) of this section, the
court shall inform the parties that information has not been disclosed and
shall state for the record the reasons for the court’s action. The action of
the court in excepting information shall be reviewable on appeal.
(4) A defendant
who is being sentenced for felonies committed prior to November 1, 1989, may
file a written motion to correct the criminal history contained in the
presentence report prior to the date of sentencing. At sentencing, the court
shall consider defendant’s motion to correct the presentence report and shall
correct any factual errors in the criminal history contained in that report. An
order allowing or denying a motion made pursuant to this subsection shall not
be reviewable on appeal. If corrections are made by the court, only corrected
copies of the report shall be provided to individuals or agencies pursuant to
ORS 137.077.
(5)(a) The
provisions of this subsection apply only to a defendant being sentenced for a
felony committed on or after November 1, 1989.
(b) Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection, the defendant’s
criminal history as set forth in the presentence report shall satisfy the state’s
burden of proof as to the defendant’s criminal history.
(c) Prior to the
date of sentencing, the defendant shall notify the district attorney and the
court in writing of any error in the criminal history as set forth in the
presentence report. Except to the extent that any disputed portion is later
changed by agreement of the district attorney and defendant with the approval
of the court, the state shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of
evidence any disputed part of the defendant’s criminal history. The court shall
allow the state reasonable time to produce evidence to meet its burden.
(d) The court
shall correct any error in the criminal history as reflected in the presentence
report.
(e) If
corrections to the presentence report are made by the court, only corrected
copies of the report shall be provided to individuals or agencies pursuant to
ORS 137.077.
(f) Except as
provided in ORS 138.105 and 138.115, the court’s decision on issues relating to
a defendant’s criminal history shall not be reviewable on appeal. [1973 c.836 §261;
1977 c.372 §11; 1983 c.649 §1; 1989 c.408 §2; 1989 c.790 §8; 2017 c.529 §24]
(Aggravation or
Mitigation)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Cuevas, 358 P.3d 147 (Or. 2015).
State v. Cuevas, 358 P.3d 147 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 20× “15 ORS 137.079(5) provides that “the defen- dant’s criminal history as set forth in the presentence report shall satisfy the state’s burden of proof as to the defendant’s 15 ORS 137.”
State Ex Rel. Russell v. Jones, 647 P.2d 904 (Or. 1982).
· cites it 8× “When the information has been gathered for the judge, the information in the report may be challenged and supplemented at the sentencing hearing. The information in the presentence report, other than certain diagnostic or confidential reports, may be disclosed to the state and…”
State v. Torres, 59 P.3d 47 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 13× “That conclusion is further supported by the explanation on behalf of the council about the section of the proposed bill that amended ORS 137.079: “It * * * is an important section in that it provides that the criminal history summary that’s included in the PSI will serve as…”
State v. Stewart/Billings, 892 P.2d 1013 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 8× “ORS 137.079 contains the requirement that presentence reports are to be considered by a sentencing court.”
State v. Jacob, 180 P.3d 6 (Or. 2008).
· cites it 10× “610 permit such a sentence, the Oregon Constitution prohibits the use of the 1983 conviction to enhance his sentence, and two other statutes, ORS 137.079 and ORS 138.222, demonstrate a legislative intent to allow that challenge.”
State v. Torres, 48 P.3d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 8× “” ORS 137.079(5)(b). Defendant’s presentence report in this case reflects the following: “10/29/93 VUCSA M/C On 12/03/93, in Benton County 1F-N/P Washington, case #931004471, [defendant] was convicted.”
State v. Escalera, 194 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 9× “717, “previous convictions must be proven pursuant to ORS 137.079.” ORS 137.079(1), in turn, provides that: “A copy of the presentence report and all other written information concerning the defendant that the court considers in the imposition of sentence shall be made available…”
State v. Jacob, 145 P.3d 212 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “In particular, defendant argues that the 1983 gun minimum sentence does not count for purposes of his current sentencing because the conviction underlying that sentence was unlawful.”
State v. Nesbit, 361 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “We need not decide, however, whether the convictions were affirmatively part of the same criminal episode.”
State v. Fears, 688 P.2d 88 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Before imposing sentence, the trial court disclosed that it had contacted the manager of the Center — which had prepared a presentence investigation report on defendant — in order to reconcile discrepancies that appeared in the report.”
State v. Tapp, 821 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “We decline to address those issues on appeal without the trial court having had an opportunity to consider them. Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.”
State v. Green, 621 P.2d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Carsner, 289 Or 645 , 616 P2d 491 (1980), has recently said that a judge may not satisfy the requirements of ORS 137.079 by reading the presentence report to a defendant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(1) — 8 cases
State v. Escalera, 194 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“717, “previous convictions must be proven pursuant to ORS 137.079.” ORS 137.079(1), in turn, provides that: “A copy of the presentence report and all other written information concerning the defendant that the court considers in the imposition of sentence shall be made available…”
State v. Green, 621 P.2d 67 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“Carsner, 289 Or 645 , 616 P2d 491 (1980), has recently said that a judge may not satisfy the requirements of ORS 137.079 by reading the presentence report to a defendant.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(2) — 2 cases
State v. Fears, 688 P.2d 88 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Before imposing sentence, the trial court disclosed that it had contacted the manager of the Center — which had prepared a presentence investigation report on defendant — in order to reconcile discrepancies that appeared in the report.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(3) — 2 cases
State v. Fears, 688 P.2d 88 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“Before imposing sentence, the trial court disclosed that it had contacted the manager of the Center — which had prepared a presentence investigation report on defendant — in order to reconcile discrepancies that appeared in the report.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(4) — 8 cases
State v. Torres, 59 P.3d 47 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“That conclusion is further supported by the explanation on behalf of the council about the section of the proposed bill that amended ORS 137.079: “It * * * is an important section in that it provides that the criminal history summary that’s included in the PSI will serve as…”
State v. Tapp, 821 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“We decline to address those issues on appeal without the trial court having had an opportunity to consider them. Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.”
State v. Escalera, 194 P.3d 883 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“717, “previous convictions must be proven pursuant to ORS 137.079.” ORS 137.079(1), in turn, provides that: “A copy of the presentence report and all other written information concerning the defendant that the court considers in the imposition of sentence shall be made available…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(4)(b) — 1 case
State v. Tapp, 821 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“We decline to address those issues on appeal without the trial court having had an opportunity to consider them. Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(4)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Tapp, 821 P.2d 1098 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“We decline to address those issues on appeal without the trial court having had an opportunity to consider them. Conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(4)(f) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5) — 7 cases
State v. Cuevas, 358 P.3d 147 (Or. 2015).
“15 ORS 137.079(5) provides that “the defen- dant’s criminal history as set forth in the presentence report shall satisfy the state’s burden of proof as to the defendant’s 15 ORS 137.”
State v. Jacob, 180 P.3d 6 (Or. 2008).
“610 permit such a sentence, the Oregon Constitution prohibits the use of the 1983 conviction to enhance his sentence, and two other statutes, ORS 137.079 and ORS 138.222, demonstrate a legislative intent to allow that challenge.”
State v. Stewart/Billings, 892 P.2d 1013 (Or. 1995).
“ORS 137.079 contains the requirement that presentence reports are to be considered by a sentencing court.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Cuevas, 358 P.3d 147 (Or. 2015).
“15 ORS 137.079(5) provides that “the defen- dant’s criminal history as set forth in the presentence report shall satisfy the state’s burden of proof as to the defendant’s 15 ORS 137.”
State v. Torres, 48 P.3d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“” ORS 137.079(5)(b). Defendant’s presentence report in this case reflects the following: “10/29/93 VUCSA M/C On 12/03/93, in Benton County 1F-N/P Washington, case #931004471, [defendant] was convicted.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5)(c) — 9 cases
State v. Torres, 59 P.3d 47 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“That conclusion is further supported by the explanation on behalf of the council about the section of the proposed bill that amended ORS 137.079: “It * * * is an important section in that it provides that the criminal history summary that’s included in the PSI will serve as…”
State v. Cuevas, 358 P.3d 147 (Or. 2015).
“15 ORS 137.079(5) provides that “the defen- dant’s criminal history as set forth in the presentence report shall satisfy the state’s burden of proof as to the defendant’s 15 ORS 137.”
State v. Torres, 48 P.3d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“” ORS 137.079(5)(b). Defendant’s presentence report in this case reflects the following: “10/29/93 VUCSA M/C On 12/03/93, in Benton County 1F-N/P Washington, case #931004471, [defendant] was convicted.”
State v. Nesbit, 361 P.3d 649 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“We need not decide, however, whether the convictions were affirmatively part of the same criminal episode.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5)(d) — 1 case
State v. Torres, 48 P.3d 170 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“” ORS 137.079(5)(b). Defendant’s presentence report in this case reflects the following: “10/29/93 VUCSA M/C On 12/03/93, in Benton County 1F-N/P Washington, case #931004471, [defendant] was convicted.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.079(5)(f) — 3 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.