Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.667 (2026)

Amendments to sentencing guidelines; submitting to Legislative Assembly; rules

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

      137.667 Amendments to sentencing guidelines; submitting to Legislative Assembly; rules. (1) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall review all new legislation that creates new crimes or modifies existing crimes. The commission shall adopt by rule any necessary modifications to the crime seriousness scale of the guidelines to reflect the actions of the Legislative Assembly and may classify offenses as person felonies or person misdemeanors for purposes of the rules.

      (2) The commission may adopt by majority vote of all of its members who are eligible to vote amendments to the sentencing guidelines approved by section 87, chapter 790, Oregon Laws 1989. The commission shall submit the amendments to the Legislative Assembly for its approval. The amendments do not become effective unless approved by the Legislative Assembly by law. The effective date of the amendments is the date specified by the Legislative Assembly in the law approving the amendments or, if the Legislative Assembly does not specify a date, the effective date of the law approving the amendments. The Legislative Assembly may by law amend, repeal or supplement any of the amendments.

      (3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not apply to amendments to the guidelines adopted by the commission that:

      (a) Are required to implement enactments of the Legislative Assembly;

      (b) Are required under ORS 421.512 (2) or subsection (1) of this section; or

      (c)(A) Renumber rules or parts of rules, change internal references to agree with statute or rule numbers, delete references to repealed statutes or rules, substitute statute references for chapter numbers, change capitalization and spelling for the purpose of uniformity or correct manifest clerical, grammatical or typographical errors; and

      (B) Do not alter the sense, meaning, effect or substance of the rule amended.

      (4) If a rule adopted under subsection (1) of this section is not approved by the next regular Legislative Assembly following the adoption of the rule, the rule is repealed on January 1 following adjournment sine die of that Legislative Assembly. [1989 c.790 §94a; 1993 c.681 §6; 1993 c.692 §7; 1995 c.420 §6; 1997 c.691 §3; 1999 c.966 §2; 2003 c.453 §4]

 

      Note: See note under 137.651.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. Althouse, 375 P.3d 475 (Or. 2016).
State v. Althouse, 375 P.3d 475 (Or. 2016). “See ORS 137.667(1) (authorizing the Commission to adopt “necessary modifications to the crime seriousness scale of the guidelines” for new and legislatively modified crimes *678 and to “classify offenses as person felonies or person misdemeanors for the purposes of the rules”).”
State v. Ferman-Velasco, 41 P.3d 404 (Or. 2002). “That legislation was codified at ORS 137.667(1), which provides, in part: “The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall review all new legislation that creates new crimes or modifies existing crimes.”
Layton v. Hall, 47 P.3d 898 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “669 provides, in part: “The guidelines adopted under ORS 137.667 [the sentencing guidelines codified at OAR chapter 213], together with any amendments, supplements or repealing provisions, shall control the sentences for all crimes committed after the effective date of such…”
State v. Langdon, 950 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “700 and OAR 213-012-0020(2), adopted pursuant to ORS 137.667 and ORS 137.669. 6 ORS 137.121 provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to ORS 161.”
State v. Allred, 995 P.2d 1210 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See generally ORS 137.667 and 137.669. [4] Assessing a person's future criminal propensities might be particularly problematic if, as the trial court assumed, the focus is on the person aided, rather than the criminal propensities of the person being sentenced.”
State v. Ferman-Velasco, 971 P.2d 897 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “ORS 137.667(4). In authorizing the development and adoption of the guidelines, the legislature instructed the appropriate bodies to take into consideration "factors relevant to establishment of appropriate sentences, including severity of the offense, criminal history of the…”
State v. Flores, 313 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Travalini applied an administrative rule promulgated pursuant to ORS 137.667, which authorizes the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to modify sentencing guidelines to conform to legislation.”
State v. Haydon, 842 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “669 provides: *351 “The guidelines adopted by the State Sentencing Guidelines Board and approved by the Legislative Assembly under ORS 137.667 * * * shall control the sentences for all crimes committed after the effective date of such guidelines.”
Putnam v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 417 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “At the outset, the plain text of former OAR 253-05-002(4) (1989) indicates that the parenthetical that follows the word "sentence" is definitional.”
State v. Haydon, 832 P.2d 457 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “669: 2 “The guidelines adopted by the State Sentencing Guidelines Board and approved by the Legislative Assembly under ORS 137.667, together with any amendments, supplements or repealing provisions enacted by the Legislative Assembly, shall control the sentences for all crimes…”
Gaynor v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 996 P.2d 1020 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “supervisory authority’s] report * * the board may extend the active supervision period or return the offender to active supervision status, not to exceed the supervision term imposed by the sentencing court under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and applicable…”
State v. Norris, 72 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 137.667(2). Thus, the legislature apparently was aware of how to make clear when its actions had the effect of creating a new statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.667(1) — 3 cases
State v. Althouse, 375 P.3d 475 (Or. 2016). “See ORS 137.667(1) (authorizing the Commission to adopt “necessary modifications to the crime seriousness scale of the guidelines” for new and legislatively modified crimes *678 and to “classify offenses as person felonies or person misdemeanors for the purposes of the rules”).”
State v. Ferman-Velasco, 41 P.3d 404 (Or. 2002). “That legislation was codified at ORS 137.667(1), which provides, in part: “The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall review all new legislation that creates new crimes or modifies existing crimes.”
State v. Althouse (Or. 2016).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.667(2) — 3 cases
Putnam v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 417 P.3d 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “At the outset, the plain text of former OAR 253-05-002(4) (1989) indicates that the parenthetical that follows the word "sentence" is definitional.”
State v. Norris, 72 P.3d 103 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “” ORS 137.667(2). Thus, the legislature apparently was aware of how to make clear when its actions had the effect of creating a new statute.”
State v. Davidson, 507 P.3d 246 (Or. 2022).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.667(4) — 1 case
State v. Ferman-Velasco, 971 P.2d 897 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “ORS 137.667(4). In authorizing the development and adoption of the guidelines, the legislature instructed the appropriate bodies to take into consideration "factors relevant to establishment of appropriate sentences, including severity of the offense, criminal history of 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.