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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.172 (2026)

Entry of corrected judgment

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

      137.172 Entry of corrected judgment. (1) The trial court retains authority after entry of judgment of conviction or a supplemental judgment, including during the pendency of an appeal, to modify the judgment, including the sentence, to correct any arithmetic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment. The court may correct the judgment either on the motion of one of the parties or on the court’s own motion after written notice to all of the parties.

      (2) If the trial court enters a corrected judgment under this section during the pendency of an appeal, the trial court administrator shall immediately provide a copy of the corrected judgment to the appellate court. [2017 c.529 §20]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: State v. Champagne, 527 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Champagne, 527 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 17× “See Exhibit 37, Senate Committee on Judiciary, SB 896, Apr 6, 2017 (Report of the Direct Criminal Appeals Work Group on SB 896 (2017), Oregon Law Commission) Cite as 325 Or App 76 (2023) 87 (Criminal Appeals Report) (“Section 20 recodifies the pro- visions of ORS 138.”
Fletes v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 735 (Or. 2026). · cites it 4× “Within a few hours of the issuance of the deci- sions in Arellano-Sanchez, Allen, and Thrasher, the district attorney’s office in Jackson County filed a motion pursuant to ORS 137.172 to amend the judgments of conviction in Cite as 374 Or 735 (2026) 737 plaintiff’s criminal…”
Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 623 (Or. 2025). · cites it 9× “In early November, a district attorney in Washington County filed a motion in the trial court, pursu- ant to ORS 137.172, to correct the judgment of conviction to state “that it is the intent of the Court that any credit under ORS 137.”
State v. Mott, 527 P.3d 758 (Or. 2023). · cites it 2× “2 Our understanding is that the parties and the trial court apparently agreed that that court had authority pursuant to ORS 137.172(1) to enter an amended judgment to conform to the remand instructions in Lasheski I (i.”
State v. Palacios-Romero, 514 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “See ORS 137.172(1) (allow- ing a trial court, after entry of judgment, “to modify the judgment, including the sentence, to correct any arithme- tic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment,” but requiring “written notice to all of the…”
State v. Fields, 468 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “015(8) in both types of cases (whether a scar amounts to “disfigurement”; if so, whether that disfigurement is “pro- tracted”; and, if so, whether the protracted disfigurement is “serious”), although we note that, in the sentencing cases, the ultimate question under ORS 137.”
State v. Pryor, 484 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Held: Based on the record here, it is possible that the trial court was attempt- ing to correct a clerical error under ORS 137.172 when it entered the amended judgments.”
State v. Champagne (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “083 was slightly reworded and codified at what is now ORS 137.172. Nothing in the text or history of the current statute suggests that the legislature intended any substantive changes to the original.”
State v. Golden, 426 P.3d 172 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “529, § 26, and replaced by a similar provision now codified as ORS 137.172. Counts 1 and 2, to which defendant pleaded guilty, are described in the district attorney's information as involving different victims.”
State v. Redmond, 435 P.3d 764 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “In view of the arguments of both parties, and because we have already determined that the judgment must be vacated and remanded, the trial court should *464 reconsider that ruling following a hearing on the matter, to ensure that any amended judgment reflects the legally correct…”
Hatton v. Sundquist, 374 Or. 739 (Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “Given the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion pursuant to ORS 137.172, no other putative source of authority pres- ently exists for plaintiff’s imprisonment.”
McEwen v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 744 (Or. 2026). · cites it 2× “Given the trial court’s denial of the state’s motion pursuant to ORS 137.172, no other putative source of authority pres- ently exists for plaintiff’s imprisonment.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.172(1) — 19 cases
State v. Champagne, 527 P.3d 1067 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “See Exhibit 37, Senate Committee on Judiciary, SB 896, Apr 6, 2017 (Report of the Direct Criminal Appeals Work Group on SB 896 (2017), Oregon Law Commission) Cite as 325 Or App 76 (2023) 87 (Criminal Appeals Report) (“Section 20 recodifies the pro- visions of ORS 138.”
State v. Mott, 527 P.3d 758 (Or. 2023). “2 Our understanding is that the parties and the trial court apparently agreed that that court had authority pursuant to ORS 137.172(1) to enter an amended judgment to conform to the remand instructions in Lasheski I (i.”
State v. Palacios-Romero, 514 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “See ORS 137.172(1) (allow- ing a trial court, after entry of judgment, “to modify the judgment, including the sentence, to correct any arithme- tic or clerical errors or to delete or modify any erroneous term in the judgment,” but requiring “written notice to all of the…”
Fletes v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 735 (Or. 2026). “Within a few hours of the issuance of the deci- sions in Arellano-Sanchez, Allen, and Thrasher, the district attorney’s office in Jackson County filed a motion pursuant to ORS 137.172 to amend the judgments of conviction in Cite as 374 Or 735 (2026) 737 plaintiff’s criminal…”
State v. Pryor, 484 P.3d 1123 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Held: Based on the record here, it is possible that the trial court was attempt- ing to correct a clerical error under ORS 137.172 when it entered the amended judgments.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.172(2)(b)(B) — 1 case
State v. Fields, 468 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “015(8) in both types of cases (whether a scar amounts to “disfigurement”; if so, whether that disfigurement is “pro- tracted”; and, if so, whether the protracted disfigurement is “serious”), although we note that, in the sentencing cases, the ultimate question 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.