137.545 Period
of probation; discharge from probation; proceedings in case of violation of
conditions. (1)
Subject to the limitations in ORS 137.010 and to rules of the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989:
(a) The period of
probation shall be as the court determines and may, in the discretion of the
court, be continued or extended.
(b) The court may
at any time discharge a person from probation.
(2) At any time
during the probation period, the court may issue a warrant and cause a
defendant to be arrested for violating any of the conditions of probation. Any
parole and probation officer, police officer or other officer with power of
arrest may arrest a probationer without a warrant for violating any condition
of probation, and a statement by the parole and probation officer or arresting
officer setting forth that the probationer has, in the judgment of the parole
and probation officer or arresting officer, violated the conditions of
probation is sufficient warrant for the detention of the probationer in the
county jail until the probationer can be brought before the court or until the
parole and probation officer or supervisory personnel impose and the offender
agrees to structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with the rules
adopted under ORS 137.595. Disposition shall be made during the first 36 hours
in custody, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, unless later disposition
is authorized by supervisory personnel. If authorized by supervisory personnel,
the disposition shall take place in no more than five judicial days. If the
offender does not consent to structured, intermediate sanctions imposed by the
parole and probation officer or supervisory personnel in accordance with the
rules adopted under ORS 137.595, the parole and probation officer, as soon as
practicable, but within one judicial day, shall report the arrest or detention
to the court that imposed the probation. The parole and probation officer shall
promptly submit to the court a report showing in what manner the probationer
has violated the conditions of probation.
(3) Except for
good cause shown or at the request of the probationer, the probationer shall be
brought before a magistrate during the first 36 hours of custody, excluding
holidays, Saturdays and Sundays. That magistrate, in the exercise of
discretion, may order the probationer held pending a violation or revocation
hearing or pending transfer to the jurisdiction of another court where the
probation was imposed. In lieu of an order that the probationer be held, the
magistrate may release the probationer upon the condition that the probationer
appear in court at a later date for a probation violation or revocation
hearing. If the probationer is being held on an out-of-county warrant, the
magistrate may order the probationer released subject to an additional order to
the probationer that the probationer report within seven calendar days to the
court that imposed the probation.
(4) When a
probationer has been sentenced to probation in more than one county and the
probationer is being held on an out-of-county warrant for a probation
violation, the court may consider consolidation of some or all pending
probation violation proceedings pursuant to rules made and orders issued by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under ORS 137.547:
(a) Upon the
motion of the district attorney or defense counsel in the county in which the
probationer is held; or
(b) Upon the
court’s own motion.
(5)(a) For
defendants sentenced for felonies committed prior to November 1, 1989, and for
any misdemeanor, the court that imposed the probation, after summary hearing,
may revoke the probation and:
(A) If the
execution of some other part of the sentence has been suspended, the court
shall cause the rest of the sentence imposed to be executed.
(B) If no other
sentence has been imposed, the court may impose any other sentence which
originally could have been imposed.
(b) For
defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the
court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation supervision
and impose a sanction as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission.
(6) Except for
good cause shown, if the revocation hearing is not conducted within 14 calendar
days following the arrest or detention of the probationer, the probationer
shall be released from custody.
(7) A defendant
who has been previously confined in the county jail as a condition of probation
pursuant to ORS 137.540 or as part of a probationary sentence pursuant to the
rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission may be given credit for all
time thus served in any order or judgment of confinement resulting from
revocation of probation.
(8) In the case
of any defendant whose sentence has been suspended but who has not been
sentenced to probation, the court may issue a warrant and cause the defendant
to be arrested and brought before the court at any time within the maximum
period for which the defendant might originally have been sentenced. Thereupon
the court, after summary hearing, may revoke the suspension of sentence and
cause the sentence imposed to be executed.
(9) If a
probationer fails to appear or report to a court for further proceedings as
required by an order under subsection (3) of this section, the failure to
appear may be prosecuted in the county to which the probationer was ordered to
appear or report.
(10) The
probationer may admit or deny the violation by being physically present at the
hearing or by means of simultaneous electronic transmission as described in ORS
131.045.
(11) The victim
has the right:
(a) Upon request
made within the time period prescribed in the notice required by ORS 147.417,
to be notified of any hearing before the court that may result in the
revocation of the defendant’s probation for a felony or person Class A
misdemeanor. The notification shall be provided by:
(A) The district
attorney if the defendant is not supervised by the supervisory authority or if
the defendant is supervised by the supervisory authority and the district
attorney initiates a request with the court for a probation violation or
revocation hearing.
(B) The
supervisory authority if the defendant is supervised by the supervisory
authority and the supervisory authority initiates a request with the court for
a probation violation or revocation hearing.
(b) To appear
personally at the hearing.
(c) If present,
to reasonably express any views relevant to the issues before the court.
(12) As used in
this section:
(a) “Person Class
A misdemeanor” has the meaning given that term in the rules of the Oregon
Criminal Justice Commission.
(b) “Supervisory
authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 144.087. [Formerly 137.550;
2003 c.577 §14; 2005 c.264 §4; 2005 c.566 §11; 2009 c.178 §28; 2009 c.660 §§20,32;
2011 c.596 §§1,5]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
67
cases (
30 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case:
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 33× “550 (1987), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999)).1 When the guidelines drafters wanted existing stat- utes to apply instead of the guidelines, they stated so in the guidelines themselves.”
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 15× “550 (1957), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999), concluded, “Probation is a statutory process and, under laws similar to ours, it seems to be the general rule that if the revocation procedure is started properly before the expiration of the term, the court retains jurisdiction,…”
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 20× “550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 5× ““For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989,” a trial court imposing probation revo- cation sanctions is directed to the guidelines rules by ORS 137.545(5)(b), which provides that “the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke…”
State v. Preston-Mittasch, 510 P.3d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 13× “ORS 137.545 pro- vides, in part: “(5)(a) For defendants sentenced for felonies commit- ted prior to November 1, 1989, and for any misdemeanor, the court that imposed the probation, after summary hear- ing, may revoke the probation and: “(A) If the execution of some other part of…”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “By legislative directive, those rules define the scope of a trial court's probation revocation authority in felony cases: "For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation…”
State v. Denson, 380 P.3d 1170 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “717(1) establishes presumptive sentences for defendants subject to its terms, that statute also establishes the “presumptive sentence” for the purposes of ORS 137.545 and OAR 213-010-0002. That is because, the state reasons, the trial court was required to apply (and, in fact,…”
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “And ORS 137.545(5)(b) provides that, “[f|or defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1,1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation supervision and impose a sanction as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice…”
State v. Stroud, 428 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “hable because, unlike in Smith and Dick , where probation had expired or was revoked, she remains on probation until 2020, and, therefore, there are potentially adverse legal consequences for her in terms of decisions the court may make with respect to that continued probation,…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 33× “550 (1987), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999)).1 When the guidelines drafters wanted existing stat- utes to apply instead of the guidelines, they stated so in the guidelines themselves.”
State v. Miller, 199 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “ORS 137.545(1) provides, in part: “Subject to the limitations in ORS 137.”
State v. Orcutt, 380 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “717 must refer to that statute for a resulting probation revocation sanction to be based thereon pursuant to ORS 137.545 and OAR 213-010-0002). Oregon Laws 2013, chapter 649, section 6, provides: “(1) The amendments to ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(1) — 4 cases
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“By legislative directive, those rules define the scope of a trial court's probation revocation authority in felony cases: "For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation…”
State v. Miller, 199 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 137.545(1) provides, in part: “Subject to the limitations in ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(1)(a) — 9 cases
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“550 (1957), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999), concluded, “Probation is a statutory process and, under laws similar to ours, it seems to be the general rule that if the revocation procedure is started properly before the expiration of the term, the court retains jurisdiction,…”
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(2) — 19 cases
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“550 (1957), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999), concluded, “Probation is a statutory process and, under laws similar to ours, it seems to be the general rule that if the revocation procedure is started properly before the expiration of the term, the court retains jurisdiction,…”
State v. Stroud, 428 P.3d 949 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“hable because, unlike in Smith and Dick , where probation had expired or was revoked, she remains on probation until 2020, and, therefore, there are potentially adverse legal consequences for her in terms of decisions the court may make with respect to that continued probation,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(3) — 1 case
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“550 (1957), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999), concluded, “Probation is a statutory process and, under laws similar to ours, it seems to be the general rule that if the revocation procedure is started properly before the expiration of the term, the court retains jurisdiction,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(5) — 3 cases
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“550 (1987), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999)).1 When the guidelines drafters wanted existing stat- utes to apply instead of the guidelines, they stated so in the guidelines themselves.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(5)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Preston-Mittasch, 510 P.3d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 137.545 pro- vides, in part: “(5)(a) For defendants sentenced for felonies commit- ted prior to November 1, 1989, and for any misdemeanor, the court that imposed the probation, after summary hear- ing, may revoke the probation and: “(A) If the execution of some other part of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(5)(a)(A) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(5)(a)(B) — 1 case
State v. Preston-Mittasch, 510 P.3d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 137.545 pro- vides, in part: “(5)(a) For defendants sentenced for felonies commit- ted prior to November 1, 1989, and for any misdemeanor, the court that imposed the probation, after summary hear- ing, may revoke the probation and: “(A) If the execution of some other part of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(5)(b) — 28 cases
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“550 (1987), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999)).1 When the guidelines drafters wanted existing stat- utes to apply instead of the guidelines, they stated so in the guidelines themselves.”
State v. Rusen, 509 P.3d 628 (Or. 2022).
““For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989,” a trial court imposing probation revo- cation sanctions is directed to the guidelines rules by ORS 137.545(5)(b), which provides that “the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke…”
State v. Kelemen, 437 P.3d 1225 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“By legislative directive, those rules define the scope of a trial court's probation revocation authority in felony cases: "For defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation…”
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015).
“And ORS 137.545(5)(b) provides that, “[f|or defendants sentenced for felonies committed on or after November 1,1989, the court that imposed the probationary sentence may revoke probation supervision and impose a sanction as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“550 (1987), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999)).1 When the guidelines drafters wanted existing stat- utes to apply instead of the guidelines, they stated so in the guidelines themselves.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(6) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(7) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(l)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Miller, 199 P.3d 329 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“ORS 137.545(1) provides, in part: “Subject to the limitations in ORS 137.”
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.545(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“550 (1963), renumbered as ORS 137.545 (1999). [1] See Barker, 238 Or.”
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.