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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.671 (2026)

Authority of court to impose sentence outside guidelines

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

      137.671 Authority of court to impose sentence outside guidelines. (1) The court may impose a sentence outside the presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive under ORS 137.669 for a specific offense if it finds there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a deviation from the presumptive sentence.

      (2) Whenever the court imposes a sentence outside the presumptive sentence it shall set forth the reasons for its decision in the manner required by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1987 c.619 §6; 1989 c.790 §39; 1995 c.420 §8]

 

      Note: See note under 137.651.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 932 P.2d 1145 (Or. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Huddleston v. Sawyer, 932 P.2d 1145 (Or. 1997). · cites it 8× “Except as provided in ORS 137.671, the incarcerative guidelines and any other guidelines so designated by the commission shall be mandatory and constitute presumptive sentences.”
State v. Upton, 125 P.3d 713 (Or. 2005). · cites it 5× “, ORS 137.671 (court may depart “if it finds there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying” the departure).”
State v. Haydon, 842 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Except as provided in ORS 137.671, the incarcerative guidelines and any other guidelines so designated by the board shall be mandatory and constitute presumptive sentences.”
State v. Dilts, 82 P.3d 593 (Or. 2003). · cites it 2× “12 Second, as discussed previously, ORS 137.671 authorizes a court to impose a departure sentence if it finds that substantial and compelling reasons justify a deviation from the presumptive sentence.”
State v. Dilts, 103 P.3d 95 (Or. 2004). “669 (sentencing guidelines “shall control the sentences for all crimes committed after the effective date of such guidelines * * *”); ORS 137.671(1) (“The court may impose a sentence outside the *652 presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive by ORS 137.”
State v. Teixeira, 313 P.3d 351 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Wilson, 111 Or App 147, 150 , 826 P2d 1010 (1992); see also ORS 137.671 (authorizing criminal sentence outside of the presumptive sentence only if a court finds that “there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a deviation from the presumptive sentence”); OAR…”
Febuary v. State of Oregon, 396 P.3d 894 (Or. 2017). “, ORS 137.671 (trial court may depart from presumptive felony sentences upon making certain findings); OAR 213-008-0001 to 213-008-0007 (same); ORS 137.”
State v. Sawatzky, 125 P.3d 722 (Or. 2005). “See ORS 137.671(1) (court may impose sentence departing from the presumptive range if it determines that “there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a deviation from the presumptive sentence”); OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b) (providing nonexclusive list of aggravating…”
State v. Dilts, 39 P.3d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “As to durational departures, ORS 137.671 provides: “(1) The court may impose a sentence outside the presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive under ORS 137.”
State v. Sawatzky, 96 P.3d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “See also ORS 137.671. The nonexclusive list of upward departure factors includes, for example, that the crime involved “[deliberate cruelty to victim,” that there was a “threat of or actual violence toward a witness or victim,” that the offense “involved a violation of public…”
State v. Flores, 313 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Sawatzky dealt with ORS 137.671(1), which permits a court to impose a sentence departing from the presumptive range under the sentencing guidelines if it determines that “there are substantial and compelling reasons” to do so.”
State v. Zolotoff, 365 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “” ORS 137.671(1). We begin by discussing what a trial court must do, and what the court may do, when it regains jurisdiction following an appellate court’s remand for resentencing in a felony case.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.671(1) — 10 cases
State v. Upton, 125 P.3d 713 (Or. 2005). “, ORS 137.671 (court may depart “if it finds there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying” the departure).”
State v. Dilts, 103 P.3d 95 (Or. 2004). “669 (sentencing guidelines “shall control the sentences for all crimes committed after the effective date of such guidelines * * *”); ORS 137.671(1) (“The court may impose a sentence outside the *652 presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive by ORS 137.”
State v. Sawatzky, 125 P.3d 722 (Or. 2005). “See ORS 137.671(1) (court may impose sentence departing from the presumptive range if it determines that “there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a deviation from the presumptive sentence”); OAR 213-008-0002(1)(b) (providing nonexclusive list of aggravating…”
State v. Dilts, 82 P.3d 593 (Or. 2003). “12 Second, as discussed previously, ORS 137.671 authorizes a court to impose a departure sentence if it finds that substantial and compelling reasons justify a deviation from the presumptive sentence.”
State v. Flores, 313 P.3d 378 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Sawatzky dealt with ORS 137.671(1), which permits a court to impose a sentence departing from the presumptive range under the sentencing guidelines if it determines that “there are substantial and compelling reasons” to do so.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.671(2) — 1 case
State v. Lennon, 229 P.3d 589 (Or. 2010).
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.