137.595
Establishing system of sanctions; rules. (1) The Department of Corrections shall adopt rules
to carry out the purposes of chapter 680, Oregon Laws 1993, by establishing a
system of structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions that may be
imposed by the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections
agency, taking into consideration the severity of the violation behavior, the
prior violation history, the severity of the underlying criminal conviction,
the criminal history of the offender, protection of the community, deterrence,
the effective capacity of the state prisons and the availability of appropriate
local sanctions including, but not limited to, jail, community service work,
house arrest, electronic surveillance, restitution centers, work release
centers, day reporting centers or other local sanctions.
(2) Rules adopted
by the Department of Corrections under this section shall establish:
(a) A system of
structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions that may be imposed by
the Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency on a
probationer who waives in writing a probation violation hearing, admits or
affirmatively chooses not to contest the violations alleged in a probation
violation report and consents to the sanctions;
(b) Procedures to
provide a probationer with written notice of the probationer’s right to a
hearing before the court to determine whether the probationer violated the
conditions of probation alleged in a probation violation report, and if so,
whether to continue the probationer on probation subject to the same or
modified conditions, or order sanctions for any violations and the right to be
represented by counsel at the hearing if the probationer is financially
eligible;
(c) Procedures
for a probationer to waive in writing a probation violation hearing, admit or
not contest the violations alleged in the probation violation report and
consent to the imposition of structured, intermediate sanctions by the
Department of Corrections or a county community corrections agency;
(d) The level and
type of sanctions that may be imposed by parole and probation officers and by
supervisory personnel;
(e) The level and
type of violation behavior warranting a recommendation to the court that
probation be revoked;
(f) Procedures
for notifying district attorneys and the courts of probation violations
admitted by probationers and the sanctions imposed by the Department of
Corrections or county community corrections agencies; and
(g) Such other
policies or procedures as are necessary to carry out the purposes of chapter
680, Oregon Laws 1993.
(3) Jail
confinement imposed as a custodial sanction by the Department of Corrections or
a county community corrections agency pursuant to rules adopted under this
section may not exceed 60 days per violation report. The total number of days
of jail confinement for all violation reports per conviction may not exceed the
maximum number of available jail custody units under rules adopted by the
Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
(4) Nonjail
confinement imposed as a custodial sanction by the Department of Corrections or
a county community corrections agency pursuant to rules adopted under this
section may not exceed the maximum number of available nonjail custody units
under rules adopted by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1993 c.680 §11;
1999 c.121 §1; 2001 c.962 §93; 2005 c.264 §10]
Note: See note under 137.592.
Note: Legislative Counsel has
substituted “chapter 680, Oregon Laws 1993,” for the words “this Act” in
section 11, chapter 680, Oregon Laws 1993, compiled as 137.595. Specific ORS
references have not been substituted, pursuant to 173.160. These sections may
be determined by referring to the 1993 Comparative Section Table located in
Volume 22 of ORS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case:
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017).
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 11× “That statute provides: “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…”
State v. Hunt, 476 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “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” (emphasis added));…”
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “540(7), “[f]ailure to abide by all general and special conditions of probation may result in arrest, modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposi- tion of structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595.” Cite as 311 Or App…”
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 137.595(1). Meanwhile, the sentencing court retains authority to revoke probation, and “to impose sanctions for the [probation] violations,” if the court stated on the record that it retained that authority at the time of sentencing.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “593(2)(c) (noting that, upon finding a violation, a court has discretion “to revoke probation or impose such other or additional sanctions” as authorized by law); ORS 137.595 (describing system of “structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions”).”
State v. Martin, 188 P.3d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “540(6) provides: "Failure to abide by all general and special conditions imposed by the court * * * may result in arrest, modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposition of structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595."…”
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “593(3), which provides: “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 *130 after the probationer has completed a structured, intermediate sanction imposed by the…”
State v. Gray, 380 P.3d 1082 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“540(6) provides that “[f]ailure to abide by all general and special conditions of probation may result in arrest, modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposition of structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595.” Nothing…”
State v. Ferguson, 206 P.3d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “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,…”
State v. Lindquist, 86 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“See ORS 137.595 - 137.596. Indeed, whereas a person can be imprisoned upon revocation of probation, imprisonment is not a lawful sanction for the offense category of “violation.”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
· cites it 2× “593(2)(c) (noting that, upon finding a violation, a court has discretion “to revoke probation or impose such other or additional sanctions” as authorized by law); ORS 137.595 (describing system of “structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions”).”
State v. Richards (Or. 2017).
· cites it 11× “Richards agency or a county community corrections agency pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 137.595.” According to defendant, the Department of Corrections had adopted administrative rules setting out structured, inter- mediate sanctions—that is, administrative sanctions short…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.595(1) — 7 cases
State v. Lane, 355 P.3d 914 (Or. 2015).
“ORS 137.595(1). Meanwhile, the sentencing court retains authority to revoke probation, and “to impose sanctions for the [probation] violations,” if the court stated on the record that it retained that authority at the time of sentencing.”
State v. Hunt, 476 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“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” (emphasis added));…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“593(2)(c) (noting that, upon finding a violation, a court has discretion “to revoke probation or impose such other or additional sanctions” as authorized by law); ORS 137.595 (describing system of “structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions”).”
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017).
“That statute provides: “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…”
State v. Logston, 374 Or. 101 (Or. 2025).
“593(2)(c) (noting that, upon finding a violation, a court has discretion “to revoke probation or impose such other or additional sanctions” as authorized by law); ORS 137.595 (describing system of “structured, intermediate probation violation sanctions”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.595(2) — 3 cases
State v. Hunt, 476 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“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” (emphasis added));…”
State v. Richards, 401 P.3d 767 (Or. 2017).
“That statute provides: “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…”
State v. Richards (Or. 2017).
“Richards agency or a county community corrections agency pursuant to rules adopted under ORS 137.595.” According to defendant, the Department of Corrections had adopted administrative rules setting out structured, inter- mediate sanctions—that is, administrative sanctions short…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.595(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Berglund, 491 P.3d 820 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“540(7), “[f]ailure to abide by all general and special conditions of probation may result in arrest, modification of conditions, revocation of probation or imposi- tion of structured, intermediate sanctions in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 137.595.” Cite as 311 Or App…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.595(3) — 1 case
State v. Richards, 370 P.3d 874 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“593(3), which provides: “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 *130 after the probationer has completed a structured, intermediate sanction imposed by the…”
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.