137.330 Where
judgment of imprisonment in county jail is executed. (1) Except as provided in ORS
137.167, 137.333 or 423.478, a judgment of imprisonment in the county jail
shall be executed by confinement in the jail of the county where the judgment
is given, except that when the place of trial has been changed, the confinement
shall take place in the jail of the county where the action was commenced.
(2) The jailor of
any county jail to which a prisoner is ordered, sentenced or delivered pursuant
to ORS 137.167 shall receive and keep such prisoner in the same manner as if
the prisoner had been ordered, sentenced or delivered to the jailor by an officer
or court of the jailor’s own county; but the county in which the prisoner would
be imprisoned except for the provisions of ORS 137.167 shall pay all the
expenses of keeping and maintaining the prisoner in said jail. [Amended by 1987
c.550 §4; 1996 c.4 §3]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case:
State v. Leathers, 531 P.2d 901 (Or. 1975).
State v. Leathers, 531 P.2d 901 (Or. 1975).
· cites it 2× “At the time of sentence the statute read: “Whenever it appears to the court, at the time of giving judgment of imprisonment in the county jail, that there is no sufficient jail in the proper county, as provided in ORS 137.330, suitable for the safe confinement of the defendant,…”
State v. Frier, 333 P.3d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We agree that those statutes provide important context suggesting that the legislature generally uses the phrase “term of imprisonment” to refer to a term of confinement either in jail or in prison. We note that several other statutes also refer to “imprisonment” in jail.”
State v. Nelson, 424 P.2d 223 (Or. 1967).
“Since the legislature has designated where sentences for imprisonment for crimes shall be served, a trial court has no authority to provide that the *325 sentence shall he served in any place other than so designated.”
State v. Hamilton, 974 P.2d 245 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “320, the statute governing a defendant's commitment to ODOC, or ORS 137.330, governing commitments to county jails, to indicate that the court's authority to correct an invalid sentence depends on whether the defendant has been committed to the county jail or to ODOC.”
State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 374 Or. 423 (Or. 2025).
“In other related stat- utes, the legislature used the term “county jail” (ORS 137.330), or “jail of the proper county” (ORS 137.”
State v. Leathers, 525 P.2d 63 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 4× “ORS 137.330 (1) provides that when a court enters a judgment of imprisonment in the county jail, the confinement is to be “in the jail of the county where the judgment is given.”
Fergelic v. Cupp, 631 P.2d 800 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“390; see also, ORS 137.330. The effect of these provisions on the petitioner is not before us.”
State ex rel Torres-Lopez v. Fahrion, 374 Or. 423 (Or. 2025).
“In other related statutes, the legislature used the term “county jail” (ORS 137.330), or “jail of the proper county” (ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.330(1) — 1 case
State v. Frier, 333 P.3d 1093 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“We agree that those statutes provide important context suggesting that the legislature generally uses the phrase “term of imprisonment” to refer to a term of confinement either in jail or in prison. We note that several other statutes also refer to “imprisonment” in jail.”
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.