137.635
Determinate sentences required for certain felony convictions. (1) When, in the case of a felony
described in subsection (2) of this section, a court sentences a convicted
defendant who has previously been convicted of any felony designated in
subsection (2) of this section, the sentence shall not be an indeterminate
sentence to which the defendant otherwise would be subject under ORS 137.120,
but, unless it imposes a death penalty under ORS 163.105, the court shall
impose a determinate sentence, the length of which the court shall determine,
to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Any mandatory minimum sentence
otherwise provided by law shall apply. The sentence shall not exceed the
maximum sentence otherwise provided by law in such cases. The convicted
defendant who is subject to this section shall not be eligible for probation.
The convicted defendant shall serve the entire sentence imposed by the court
and shall not, during the service of such a sentence, be eligible for parole or
any form of temporary leave from custody. The person shall not be eligible for
any reduction in sentence pursuant to ORS 421.120 or for any reduction in term
of incarceration pursuant to ORS 421.121.
(2) Felonies to
which subsection (1) of this section applies include and are limited to:
(a) Murder in any
degree, as defined in ORS 163.107 or 163.115, and any aggravated form thereof.
(b) Manslaughter
in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.118.
(c) Assault in
the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.185.
(d) Kidnapping in
the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.235.
(e) Rape in the
first degree, as defined in ORS 163.375.
(f) Sodomy in the
first degree, as defined in ORS 163.405.
(g) Unlawful
sexual penetration in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.411.
(h) Burglary in
the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.225.
(i) Arson in the
first degree, as defined in ORS 164.325.
(j) Robbery in
the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.415.
(3) When the
court imposes a sentence under this section, the court shall indicate in the
judgment that the defendant is subject to this section. [1989 c.1 §§2,3; 1991
c.386 §6; 1993 c.692 §5; 1995 c.79 §49; 2003 c.14 §59; 2019 c.635 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
84
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case:
Burdge v. Palmateer, 112 P.3d 320 (Or. 2005).
Burdge v. Palmateer, 112 P.3d 320 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 84× “The state asked the court, among other things, to impose determinate sentences under ORS 137.635 (1993) [1] in cases two and three.”
State v. Allison, 923 P.2d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 92× “ORS 137.635, enacted by the voters in 1988, provides that, when a court sentences a convicted defendant on any of a list of enumerated felonies, and that defendant "has previously been convicted" of any of those felonies, the court must impose a determinate sentence that is not…”
Burdge v. Palmateer, 67 P.3d 397 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 103× “We write only to address petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was inadequate in failing to object to the imposition of sentences under ORS 137.635. [1] We conclude that petitioner has established that trial counsel's performance was constitutionally inadequate and that…”
Samson v. Brown, 486 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 65× “The question presented is whether a person serving two prison sentences concurrently—one of which is subject to ORS 137.”
State v. Haydon, 842 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 21× “Defendant challenged the sentences for his convictions for robbery and burglary imposed under ORS 137.635, the codification of Ballot Measure 4, adopted by the voters in 1988, which provides, in part: “(1) When, in the case of a felony described in subsection (2) of this…”
Antoine v. Taylor, 499 P.3d 48 (Or. 2021).
· cites it 5× “In that case, the petitioner had been sentenced under ORS 137.635, a statute mandating determinate sen- tences when the defendant had qualifying prior convictions.”
State v. Casiano, 166 P.3d 599 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 25× “In this criminal appeal, defendant challenges only his sentence, arguing that the trial court committed plain error in concluding that his conviction and sentence are subject to ORS 137.635. 1 We conclude that defendant is correct and therefore vacate the sentence and remand for…”
State v. Riley, 97 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Consequently, on March 19, 2002, the court entered a second *380 amended judgment that replaced the paragraph quoted above with the following one: “The Court finds that this sentence is subject to ORS 137.635, and IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve the entire sentence…”
State v. Haydon, 832 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 7× “1 The sentencing court imposed a 12-year determinate sentence on the robbery conviction and a consecutive four-year determinate sentence on the burglary conviction, both ostensibly pursuant to ORS 137.635. We remand for resentencing. In 1988, by initiative, the voters adopted…”
Estes v. Dep't of Corr., 150 P.3d 1088 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “Former OAR 291-100-110 (Sept 20, 1993) was adopted by DOC to allow it to compute the term of an inmate sentenced pursuant to ORS 137.635, a provision that (1) requires the trial court to impose a determinate sentence and (2) makes the convicted defendant ineligible for…”
State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 932 P.2d 1145 (Or. 1997).
· cites it 2× “"(2) If the provisions of ORS 137.635 [providing mandatory determinate sentences for certain specified felony convictions], require the imprisonment of an offender for whom the grid provides presumptive probation, the offender shall be imprisoned for a duration determined as…”
State v. Andre, 920 P.2d 1145 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “Defendant appeals and argues that the court erred in imposing sentence by finding that ORS 137.635 was applicable to his burglary convictions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(1) — 21 cases
Samson v. Brown, 486 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The question presented is whether a person serving two prison sentences concurrently—one of which is subject to ORS 137.”
Burdge v. Palmateer, 67 P.3d 397 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“We write only to address petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was inadequate in failing to object to the imposition of sentences under ORS 137.635. [1] We conclude that petitioner has established that trial counsel's performance was constitutionally inadequate and that…”
Burdge v. Palmateer, 112 P.3d 320 (Or. 2005).
“The state asked the court, among other things, to impose determinate sentences under ORS 137.635 (1993) [1] in cases two and three.”
State v. Riley, 97 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Consequently, on March 19, 2002, the court entered a second *380 amended judgment that replaced the paragraph quoted above with the following one: “The Court finds that this sentence is subject to ORS 137.635, and IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve the entire sentence…”
State v. Allison, 923 P.2d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 137.635, enacted by the voters in 1988, provides that, when a court sentences a convicted defendant on any of a list of enumerated felonies, and that defendant "has previously been convicted" of any of those felonies, the court must impose a determinate sentence that is not…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(2) — 8 cases
State v. Allison, 923 P.2d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“ORS 137.635, enacted by the voters in 1988, provides that, when a court sentences a convicted defendant on any of a list of enumerated felonies, and that defendant "has previously been convicted" of any of those felonies, the court must impose a determinate sentence that is not…”
Burdge v. Palmateer, 67 P.3d 397 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“We write only to address petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was inadequate in failing to object to the imposition of sentences under ORS 137.635. [1] We conclude that petitioner has established that trial counsel's performance was constitutionally inadequate and that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(2)(a) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(2)(h) — 6 cases
State v. Riley, 97 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Consequently, on March 19, 2002, the court entered a second *380 amended judgment that replaced the paragraph quoted above with the following one: “The Court finds that this sentence is subject to ORS 137.635, and IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve the entire sentence…”
Samson v. Brown, 486 P.3d 59 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“The question presented is whether a person serving two prison sentences concurrently—one of which is subject to ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(3) — 4 cases
State v. Riley, 97 P.3d 1269 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“Consequently, on March 19, 2002, the court entered a second *380 amended judgment that replaced the paragraph quoted above with the following one: “The Court finds that this sentence is subject to ORS 137.635, and IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall serve the entire sentence…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.635(h) — 1 case
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.