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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123 (2026)

Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences

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

      137.123 Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences. (1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant. The court may provide for consecutive sentences only in accordance with the provisions of this section. A sentence shall be deemed to be a concurrent term unless the judgment expressly provides for consecutive sentences.

      (2) If a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for criminal offenses that do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, or if the defendant previously was sentenced by any other court within the United States to a sentence which the defendant has not yet completed, the court may impose a sentence concurrent with or consecutive to the other sentence or sentences.

      (3) When a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated after sentencing for the commission of a previous crime, the court shall provide that the sentence for the new crime be consecutive to the sentence for the previous crime.

      (4) When a defendant has been found guilty of more than one criminal offense arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for each resulting conviction shall be concurrent unless the court complies with the procedures set forth in subsection (5) of this section.

      (5) The court has discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if the court finds:

      (a) That the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated was not merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime but rather was an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense; or

      (b) The criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. [1987 c.2 §12; 1991 c.67 §29; 1991 c.111 §14; 1995 c.657 §2; 2003 c.14 §58]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 308 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). · cites it 41× “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 78× “ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). · cites it 105× “First, the guidelines authorized the trial court to proceed in accordance with ORS 137.123, which generally sets out the circumstances in which consecutive sentences are allowed and specifically permits them for crimes against different victims.”
State v. Haugen, 243 P.3d 31 (Or. 2010). · cites it 36× “Consecutive Sentences (Assignment of Error Number 24) Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to impose his death sentence consecutively to the life sentence that he was already serving.”
State v. Racicot, 809 P.2d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 38× “In 1987, the legislature codified section 12 of Ballot Measure 10 as ORS 137.123. The only significant difference between ORS 137.”
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022). · cites it 18× “Specifically, the state relies on OAR 213-012-0010, which provides that, “[w]hen multiple convictions have been entered against a single defendant, the sentencing judge may impose consecutive or concurrent sentences as provided by ORS 137.123 and 137.370.” In turn, ORS 137.”
State v. Warren, 5 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 45× “) We do not conduct a de novo review of the record in determining whether a consecutive sentence is authorized under ORS 137.123. State v. Racicot, 106 Or.App.”
State v. Soto, 551 P.3d 893 (Or. 2024). · cites it 20× “Cite as 372 Or 561 (2024) 579 ORS 137.123 was adopted by initiative in the 1986 election as part of Ballot Measure 10, known as the “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights.”
State v. Banks, 180 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 38× “In particular, the court imposed a sentence of 90 months on the first-degree robbery conviction and, pursuant to ORS 137.123, a consecutive sentence of 60 months on the first-degree burglary conviction.”
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009). · cites it 6× “2008)); Oregon (Ore.Rev. Stat. § 137.123 (2007)). [4] Sentences must run consecutively, however, "[w]hen a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated.”
State v. Porter, 494 P.3d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 19× “Further, because of the admitted sentencing enhancement facts and because DUII and DWR “contain separate elements and the elements show and require an intent to commit separate crimes,” the court, according to the state, was “empowered to impose consecutive sentences for those…”
State v. Edwards, 399 P.3d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 19× “The firing of a single shot into the victim’s head by defendant could demonstrate a willingness to commit the crime of murder, but in the absence of findings of other facts that demonstrate a willingness to commit the additional offense of first-degree *105 assault, it was error…”
Show all 308 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(1) — 27 cases
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009). “2008)); Oregon (Ore.Rev. Stat. § 137.123 (2007)). [4] Sentences must run consecutively, however, "[w]hen a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated.”
State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant.”
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
Westfall v. State of Oregon, 324 P.3d 440 (Or. 2014).
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(2) — 64 cases
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022). “Specifically, the state relies on OAR 213-012-0010, which provides that, “[w]hen multiple convictions have been entered against a single defendant, the sentencing judge may impose consecutive or concurrent sentences as provided by ORS 137.123 and 137.370.” In turn, ORS 137.”
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
State v. Banks, 180 P.3d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “In particular, the court imposed a sentence of 90 months on the first-degree robbery conviction and, pursuant to ORS 137.123, a consecutive sentence of 60 months on the first-degree burglary conviction.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “First, the guidelines authorized the trial court to proceed in accordance with ORS 137.123, which generally sets out the circumstances in which consecutive sentences are allowed and specifically permits them for crimes against different victims.”
State v. Hagberg, 190 P.3d 1209 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(3) — 10 cases
State v. Haugen, 243 P.3d 31 (Or. 2010). “Consecutive Sentences (Assignment of Error Number 24) Defendant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to impose his death sentence consecutively to the life sentence that he was already serving.”
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009). “2008)); Oregon (Ore.Rev. Stat. § 137.123 (2007)). [4] Sentences must run consecutively, however, "[w]hen a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “First, the guidelines authorized the trial court to proceed in accordance with ORS 137.123, which generally sets out the circumstances in which consecutive sentences are allowed and specifically permits them for crimes against different victims.”
State v. Bighouse, 196 P.3d 538 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Loftin, 178 P.3d 312 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(4) — 48 cases
State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant.”
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
State v. Racicot, 809 P.2d 726 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “In 1987, the legislature codified section 12 of Ballot Measure 10 as ORS 137.123. The only significant difference between ORS 137.”
Peeples v. Lampert, 191 P.3d 637 (Or. 2008).
State v. Hagberg, 190 P.3d 1209 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(4)(a) — 10 cases
State v. Sumerlin, 913 P.2d 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Davis, 830 P.2d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Anderson, 145 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Houston, 821 P.2d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
Schantz v. Maass, 834 P.2d 508 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(4)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Criswell, 386 P.3d 58 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Bucholz, 855 P.2d 1100 (Or. 1993).
State v. Sumerlin, 913 P.2d 340 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Dickerson, 827 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
Smith v. Maass, 823 P.2d 449 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(5) — 95 cases
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant.”
State v. Taylor, 108 P.3d 682 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Warren, 5 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “) We do not conduct a de novo review of the record in determining whether a consecutive sentence is authorized under ORS 137.123. State v. Racicot, 106 Or.App.”
Peeples v. Lampert, 191 P.3d 637 (Or. 2008).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(5)(A) — 1 case
Jay v. Laney (D. Or. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(5)(a) — 64 cases
State v. Tanner, 150 P.3d 31 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 137.123 provides, in pertinent part: "(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant.”
State v. Warren, 5 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “) We do not conduct a de novo review of the record in determining whether a consecutive sentence is authorized under ORS 137.123. State v. Racicot, 106 Or.App.”
State v. Soto, 551 P.3d 893 (Or. 2024). “Cite as 372 Or 561 (2024) 579 ORS 137.123 was adopted by initiative in the 1986 election as part of Ballot Measure 10, known as the “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights.”
State v. Anderson, 145 P.3d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Ice, 170 P.3d 1049 (Or. 2007). “Before turning to those arguments, we first describe ORS 137.123, which defines when courts may impose consecutive sentences.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(5)(b) — 69 cases
State v. Porter, 494 P.3d 988 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Further, because of the admitted sentencing enhancement facts and because DUII and DWR “contain separate elements and the elements show and require an intent to commit separate crimes,” the court, according to the state, was “empowered to impose consecutive sentences for those…”
State v. Gatewood, 452 P.3d 1046 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Edwards, 399 P.3d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “The firing of a single shot into the victim’s head by defendant could demonstrate a willingness to commit the crime of murder, but in the absence of findings of other facts that demonstrate a willingness to commit the additional offense of first-degree *105 assault, it was error…”
State v. Rettmann, 178 P.3d 333 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Glaspey, 55 P.3d 562 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.123(5Xb) — 1 case
State v. Warren, 5 P.3d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “) We do not conduct a de novo review of the record in determining whether a consecutive sentence is authorized under ORS 137.123. State v. Racicot, 106 Or.App.”
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.