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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.080 (2026)

Consideration of circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of punishment

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

      137.080 Consideration of circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of punishment. (1) After a plea or verdict of guilty, or after a verdict against the defendant on a plea of former conviction or acquittal, in a case where discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted, the court, upon the suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly considered in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, may, in its discretion, hear the same summarily at a specified time and upon such notice to the adverse party as it may direct.

      (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as to felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, including the maximum sentence that may be imposed because of aggravating circumstances, shall be in accordance with rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [Amended by 1989 c.790 §9]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: State v. Guzek, 906 P.2d 272 (Or. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Guzek, 906 P.2d 272 (Or. 1995). · cites it 2× “See ORS 137.080 (1985) (trial judge had discretion as to whether to conduct a sentencing hearing).”
State v. Dilts, 39 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “ORS 137.080(1) provides that, “in a case where discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted,” the court may hear evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”
State Ex Rel. Russell v. Jones, 647 P.2d 904 (Or. 1982). · cites it 2× “080: "After a plea or verdict of guilty, or after a verdict against the defendant on a plea of former conviction or acquittal, in a case where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted, the court, upon the suggestion of either…”
Buchea v. Sullivan, 497 P.2d 1169 (Or. 1972). · cites it 5× “ORS 137.080 provides for a summary hearing on aggravation or mitigation of punishment.”
State v. Wilson, 826 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “010; ORS 137.080(2). A presumptive sentence must be imposed, subject to judicial discretion to deviate for substantial and compelling reasons.”
State v. Waterhouse, 307 P.2d 327 (Or. 1957). · cites it 2× “" ORS 137.080. No such discretion is conferred by ORS 167.”
State v. Sanchez, 981 P.2d 361 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “ORS 137.080. A defendant, if he or she consents to be examined as a witness, may testify as to aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”
State v. Little, 842 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “ORS 137.080(2). 6 Holding that the rules provide the maximum term for upward departures and that OAR 253-05-002(4) applies only to presumptive sentences is consistent with the principles of the guidelines and harmonious with the other guidelines rules and statutes.”
State v. Sawatzky, 96 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “An upward departure sentence “shall not total more than double the maximum duration of the presumptive prison term.”
State v. Haydon, 842 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” ORS 137.080(2) provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as to felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, including the maximum sentence that may be imposed because of aggravating circumstances,…”
State v. Donovan, 751 P.2d 1109 (Or. 1988). “The hearing provided for by this statute is summary in nature just as is the hearing on imposition of sentence authorized by ORS 137.080. Trial judges have great discretion in controlling the nature and scope of summary hearings.”
State v. Haydon, 832 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” See also ORS 137.080(2). 3 *209 The effect of that legislation is that a defendant who commits a felony on or after November 1, 1989, is not “subject under ORS 137.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.080(1) — 2 cases
State v. Dilts, 39 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 137.080(1) provides that, “in a case where discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted,” the court may hear evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”
State v. Swisher, 840 P.2d 1339 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.080(2) — 6 cases
State v. Wilson, 826 P.2d 1010 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “010; ORS 137.080(2). A presumptive sentence must be imposed, subject to judicial discretion to deviate for substantial and compelling reasons.”
State v. Dilts, 39 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “ORS 137.080(1) provides that, “in a case where discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted,” the court may hear evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances.”
State v. Little, 842 P.2d 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “ORS 137.080(2). 6 Holding that the rules provide the maximum term for upward departures and that OAR 253-05-002(4) applies only to presumptive sentences is consistent with the principles of the guidelines and harmonious with the other guidelines rules and statutes.”
State v. Haydon, 842 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” ORS 137.080(2) provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as to felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, including the maximum sentence that may be imposed because of aggravating circumstances,…”
State v. Haydon, 832 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” See also ORS 137.080(2). 3 *209 The effect of that legislation is that a defendant who commits a felony on or after November 1, 1989, is not “subject under ORS 137.”
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.