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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593 (2026)

Duty of corrections agencies to impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations

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

      137.593 Duty of corrections agencies to impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court suspends the imposition or execution of sentence and places a defendant on probation, or sentences a defendant to probation under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and orders a defendant placed under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency, the Department of Corrections or the county community corrections agency shall impose structured, intermediate sanctions for the violation of conditions of probation in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595. Under no circumstances may the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency revoke probation.

      (2) Notwithstanding ORS 137.124 and 423.478 and any other provision of law, the sentencing judge shall retain authority:

      (a) To revoke probation and receive recommendations regarding revocation of probation from the supervising officer made in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595;

      (b) To determine whether conditions of probation have been violated and to impose sanctions for the violations if the court, at the time of sentencing, states on the record that the court is retaining such authority;

      (c) To cause a probationer to be brought before the court for a hearing upon motion of the district attorney or the court’s own motion prior to the imposition of any structured, intermediate sanctions or within four judicial days after receiving notice that a structured, intermediate sanction has been imposed on the probationer pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 137.595 and to revoke probation or impose such other or additional sanctions or modify the conditions of probation as authorized by law; and

      (d) To impose and require an offender to serve a period of incarceration not to exceed 180 days as a sanction for revocation of probation.

      (3) In no case may the sentencing judge cause a probationer to be brought before the court for a hearing and revoke probation or impose other or additional sanctions after the probationer has completed a structured, intermediate sanction imposed by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 137.595. [1993 c.680 §10; 1995 c.423 §9a]

 

      Note: See note under 137.592.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017). · cites it 23× “ORS 137.593 (2)(a). But the court’s authority is limited.”
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “” Under ORS 137.593(2)(b), “* * * [T]he sentencing judge shall retain authority: “* * * * * “(b) To determine whether conditions of probation have been violated and to impose sanctions for the violations if the court, at the time of sentencing, states on the record that the…”
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015). · cites it 2× “” ORS 137.593(1), for example, provides that, for persons who violate the conditions of their probation, the relevant corrections agency “shall impose structured, intermediate sanctions,” though the agency does not have the power to revoke probation.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Hunt, 476 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” See ORS 137.593(2) (sentencing judge retains authority to “determine whether conditions of probation have been violated and to impose sanctions for the violations if the court, at the time of sentencing, states on the record that the court is retain- ing such authority”…”
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 25× “ORS 137.593, on which defendant relies, contains relevant provisions concerning what happens after a probation violation has been established: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court * * * sentences a defendant to probation under the…”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “In summary, subsections (1) and (2) of ORS 137.593 describe the intersection of the authority granted to the court and the supervising agencies, and subsection (3) circumscribes a court’s authority to revoke probation when the supervising agency has already imposed a structured,…”
State v. LaCoe, 522 P.3d 18 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “545(2); ORS 137.593(2); OAR 213-010-0001. Moreover, when a sentencing court initiates a probation revocation proceeding, the scope of its retained authority “is tied to particular probation violations—the ones charged in the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant,” both of…”
State v. Melton, 76 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “*416 Pursuant to ORS 137.593(1), a probation officer may impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations.”
State v. Richards (Or. 2017). · cites it 23× “Defendant argues that the legislative history of ORS 137.593 and ORS 137.595 demonstrates that the Oregon leg- islature intended those statutes to confer on the Department of Corrections broad power “to limit judicial authority” and “adopt a unified policy for all administrative…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). · cites it 4× “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Freeman, 345 Or. App. 415 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “See ORS 137.593 - 137.595 (describing sanctions for probation viola- tions).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(1) — 7 cases
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015). “” ORS 137.593(1), for example, provides that, for persons who violate the conditions of their probation, the relevant corrections agency “shall impose structured, intermediate sanctions,” though the agency does not have the power to revoke probation.”
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017). “ORS 137.593 (2)(a). But the court’s authority is limited.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Melton, 76 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “*416 Pursuant to ORS 137.593(1), a probation officer may impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations.”
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 137.593, on which defendant relies, contains relevant provisions concerning what happens after a probation violation has been established: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court * * * sentences a defendant to probation under the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(2) — 5 cases
State v. Hunt, 476 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “” See ORS 137.593(2) (sentencing judge retains authority to “determine whether conditions of probation have been violated and to impose sanctions for the violations if the court, at the time of sentencing, states on the record that the court is retain- ing such authority”…”
State v. LaCoe, 522 P.3d 18 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “545(2); ORS 137.593(2); OAR 213-010-0001. Moreover, when a sentencing court initiates a probation revocation proceeding, the scope of its retained authority “is tied to particular probation violations—the ones charged in the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant,” both of…”
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 137.593, on which defendant relies, contains relevant provisions concerning what happens after a probation violation has been established: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court * * * sentences a defendant to probation under the…”
State v. Melton, 76 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “*416 Pursuant to ORS 137.593(1), a probation officer may impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations.”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “In summary, subsections (1) and (2) of ORS 137.593 describe the intersection of the authority granted to the court and the supervising agencies, and subsection (3) circumscribes a court’s authority to revoke probation when the supervising agency has already imposed a structured,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015). “” ORS 137.593(1), for example, provides that, for persons who violate the conditions of their probation, the relevant corrections agency “shall impose structured, intermediate sanctions,” though the agency does not have the power to revoke probation.”
State v. Richards (Or. 2017). “Defendant argues that the legislative history of ORS 137.593 and ORS 137.595 demonstrates that the Oregon leg- islature intended those statutes to confer on the Department of Corrections broad power “to limit judicial authority” and “adopt a unified policy for all administrative…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(2)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “” Under ORS 137.593(2)(b), “* * * [T]he sentencing judge shall retain authority: “* * * * * “(b) To determine whether conditions of probation have been violated and to impose sanctions for the violations if the court, at the time of sentencing, states on the record that the…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(2)(c) — 4 cases
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Melton, 76 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “*416 Pursuant to ORS 137.593(1), a probation officer may impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations.”
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 137.593, on which defendant relies, contains relevant provisions concerning what happens after a probation violation has been established: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court * * * sentences a defendant to probation under the…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(2)(d) — 3 cases
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “ORS 137.593, on which defendant relies, contains relevant provisions concerning what happens after a probation violation has been established: “(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, when a court * * * sentences a defendant to probation under the…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025). “545(5)(b) (authorizing courts that imposed a proba- tionary sentence for felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, to “revoke probation supervision and impose a sanc- tion as provided by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission”); ORS 137.593(1) (the relevant…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.593(3) — 4 cases
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017). “ORS 137.593 (2)(a). But the court’s authority is limited.”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “In summary, subsections (1) and (2) of ORS 137.593 describe the intersection of the authority granted to the court and the supervising agencies, and subsection (3) circumscribes a court’s authority to revoke probation when the supervising agency has already imposed a structured,…”
State v. Melton, 76 P.3d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “*416 Pursuant to ORS 137.593(1), a probation officer may impose structured, intermediate sanctions for probation violations.”
State v. Richards (Or. 2017). “Defendant argues that the legislative history of ORS 137.593 and ORS 137.595 demonstrates that the Oregon leg- islature intended those statutes to confer on the Department of Corrections broad power “to limit judicial authority” and “adopt a unified policy for all administrative…”
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.