137.712
Exceptions to ORS 137.700 and 137.707.
(1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 137.700 and 137.707, when a person is convicted of
manslaughter in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.125, assault in the
second degree as defined in ORS 163.175 (1)(b), kidnapping in the second degree
as defined in ORS 163.225, rape in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.365,
sodomy in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.395, unlawful sexual
penetration in the second degree as defined in ORS 163.408, sexual abuse in the
first degree as defined in ORS 163.427 (1)(a)(A) or robbery in the second
degree as defined in ORS 164.405, the court may impose a sentence according to
the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the
minimum sentence that otherwise may be required by ORS 137.700 or 137.707 if
the court, on the record at sentencing, makes the findings set forth in
subsection (2) of this section and finds that a substantial and compelling
reason under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the
lesser sentence. When the court imposes a sentence under this subsection, the
person is eligible for a reduction in the sentence as provided in ORS 421.121
and any other statute and is eligible for a hearing and conditional release
under ORS 420A.203 and 420A.206.
(b) In order to
make a dispositional departure under this section, the court must make the
following additional findings on the record:
(A) There exists
a substantial and compelling reason not relied upon in paragraph (a) of this
subsection;
(B) A sentence of
probation will be more effective than a prison term in reducing the risk of
offender recidivism; and
(C) A sentence of
probation will better serve to protect society.
(2) A conviction
is subject to subsection (1) of this section only if the sentencing court finds
on the record by a preponderance of the evidence:
(a) If the
conviction is for manslaughter in the second degree:
(A) That the
victim was a dependent person as defined in ORS 163.205 who was at least 18
years of age;
(B) That the
defendant is the mother or father of the victim;
(C) That the
death of the victim was the result of an injury or illness that was not caused
by the defendant;
(D) That the
defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in
accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based
on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s
recovery from the injury or illness;
(E) That no other
person previously under the defendant’s care has died or sustained significant
physical injury as a result of or despite the use of spiritual treatment,
regardless of whether the spiritual treatment was used alone or in conjunction
with medical care; and
(F) That the
defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection
(4) of this section or for criminal mistreatment in the second degree.
(b) If the
conviction is for assault in the second degree:
(A) That the
victim was not physically injured by means of a deadly weapon;
(B) That the
victim did not suffer a significant physical injury; and
(C) That the
defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection
(4) of this section.
(c) If the
conviction is for kidnapping in the second degree:
(A) That the
victim was at least 12 years of age at the time the crime was committed; and
(B) That the
defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection
(4) of this section.
(d) If the
conviction is for robbery in the second degree:
(A) That the
victim did not suffer a significant physical injury;
(B) That, if the
defendant represented by words or conduct that the defendant was armed with a
dangerous weapon, the representation did not reasonably put the victim in fear
of imminent significant physical injury;
(C) That, if the
defendant represented by words or conduct that the defendant was armed with a
deadly weapon, the representation did not reasonably put the victim in fear of
imminent physical injury; and
(D) That the
defendant does not have a previous conviction for a crime listed in subsection
(4) of this section.
(e) If the
conviction is for rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree or
sexual abuse in the first degree:
(A) That the
victim was at least 12 years of age, but under 14 years of age, at the time of
the offense;
(B) That the
defendant does not have a prior conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4)
of this section;
(C) That the
defendant has not been previously found to be within the jurisdiction of a
juvenile court for an act that would have been a felony sexual offense if the
act had been committed by an adult;
(D) That the
defendant was no more than five years older than the victim at the time of the
offense;
(E) That the
offense did not involve sexual contact with any minor other than the victim;
and
(F) That the
victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of
being under 18 years of age at the time of the offense.
(f) If the
conviction is for unlawful sexual penetration in the second degree:
(A) That the
victim was 12 years of age or older at the time of the offense;
(B) That the
defendant does not have a prior conviction for a crime listed in subsection (4)
of this section;
(C) That the
defendant has not been previously found to be within the jurisdiction of a
juvenile court for an act that would have been a felony sexual offense if the
act had been committed by an adult;
(D) That the
defendant was no more than five years older than the victim at the time of the
offense;
(E) That the
offense did not involve sexual contact with any minor other than the victim;
(F) That the
victim’s lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of
being under 18 years of age at the time of the offense; and
(G) That the
object used to commit the unlawful sexual penetration was the hand or any part
thereof of the defendant.
(3) In making the
findings required by subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the court may
consider any evidence presented at trial and may receive and consider any
additional relevant information offered by either party at sentencing.
(4) The crimes to
which subsection (2)(a)(F), (b)(C), (c)(B), (d)(D), (e)(B) and (f)(B) of this
section refer are:
(a) A crime
listed in ORS 137.700 (2) or 137.707 (4);
(b) Escape in the
first degree, as defined in ORS 162.165;
(c) Aggravated
murder, as defined in ORS 163.095;
(d) Criminally
negligent homicide, as defined in ORS 163.145;
(e) Assault in
the third degree, as defined in ORS 163.165;
(f) Criminal
mistreatment in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.205 (1)(b)(A);
(g) Rape in the
third degree, as defined in ORS 163.355;
(h) Sodomy in the
third degree, as defined in ORS 163.385;
(i) Sexual abuse
in the second degree, as defined in ORS 163.425;
(j) Stalking, as
defined in ORS 163.732;
(k) Burglary in
the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.225, when it is classified as a person
felony under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission;
(L) Arson in the
first degree, as defined in ORS 164.325;
(m) Robbery in
the third degree, as defined in ORS 164.395;
(n) A bias crime
in the first degree, as defined in ORS 166.165;
(o) Promoting
prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.012; and
(p) An attempt or
solicitation to commit any Class A or B felony listed in paragraphs (a) to (L)
of this subsection.
(5)
Notwithstanding ORS 137.545 (5)(b), if a person sentenced to probation under
this section violates a condition of probation by committing a new crime, the
court shall revoke the probation and impose the presumptive sentence of
imprisonment under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.
(6) As used in
this section:
(a) “Conviction”
includes, but is not limited to:
(A) A juvenile
court adjudication finding a person within the court’s jurisdiction under ORS
419C.005, if the person was at least 15 years of age at the time the person
committed the offense that brought the person within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court. “Conviction” does not include a juvenile court adjudication
described in this subparagraph if the person successfully asserted the defense
set forth in ORS 419C.522.
(B) A conviction
in another jurisdiction for a crime that if committed in this state would
constitute a crime listed in subsection (4) of this section.
(b) “Previous
conviction” means a conviction that was entered prior to imposing sentence on
the current crime provided that the prior conviction is based on a crime
committed in a separate criminal episode. “Previous conviction” does not
include a conviction for a Class C felony, including an attempt or solicitation
to commit a Class B felony, or a misdemeanor, unless the conviction was entered
within the 10-year period immediately preceding the date on which the current
crime was committed.
(c) “Significant
physical injury” means a physical injury that:
(A) Creates a
risk of death that is not a remote risk;
(B) Causes a
serious and temporary disfigurement;
(C) Causes a
protracted disfigurement; or
(D) Causes a
prolonged impairment of health or the function of any bodily organ. [1997 c.852
§1; 1999 c.614 §3; 1999 c.954 §2; 2001 c.851 §5; 2005 c.843 §22; 2011 c.291 §3;
2019 c.553 §13; 2019 c.634 §23]
Note: 137.712 was enacted into law by
the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 137
or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised
Statutes for further explanation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
17 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 54× “700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 62× “The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 34× “She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 25× “As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
State v. Arnold, 164 P.3d 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 28× “On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712, which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence of less than the mandatory minimum sentence otherwise required by ORS 137.”
State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 217 P.3d 659 (Or. 2009).
· cites it 4× “[3] In ORS 137.712, the legislature provided for downward departures for certain offenses in certain circumstances.”
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
State v. Bentley, 456 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 10× “He further argues that the court erred in rul- ing that he did not qualify for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712 because the significant personal injury suffered by the victim was not a result of the crime of which he was convicted.”
State v. Carlton, 388 P.3d 1093 (Or. 2017).
· cites it 3× “712(6)(a)(B), which provides that a conviction in another jurisdiction is a qualifying conviction if it “would constitute a crime listed in subsection (4) of [ORS 137.712],” and ORS 163A.020(6)(a), which provides that the reporting requirements for sex offenders apply to a…”
State v. Crescencio-Paz, 103 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 15× “The state appeals defendant’s sentence on his conviction of robbery in the second degree, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712 without making findings as to whether defendant was disqualified from a departure sentence…”
State v. Stone, 532 P.3d 90 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “The term “significant physical injury” appears in ORS 137.712 and affects sentencing. We have construed that term by looking to case law on “physical injury” and “seri- ous physical injury,” with the understanding that “signifi- cant physical injury” is meant to “fill in the gap.”
Pike v. Cain, 465 P.3d 277 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “As part of the plea agree- ment, the state and petitioner agreed that petitioner would be eligible for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712 (2015), amended by Or Laws 2019, ch 553, § 13, provided that the court found the required “substantial and compelling reasons”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(1) — 9 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
State v. Arnold, 164 P.3d 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712, which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence of less than the mandatory minimum sentence otherwise required by ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2) — 4 cases
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(b)(A) — 4 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(b)(B) — 6 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(b)(C) — 2 cases
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(d) — 7 cases
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Crescencio-Paz, 103 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“The state appeals defendant’s sentence on his conviction of robbery in the second degree, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712 without making findings as to whether defendant was disqualified from a departure sentence…”
State v. Bentley, 456 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“He further argues that the court erred in rul- ing that he did not qualify for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712 because the significant personal injury suffered by the victim was not a result of the crime of which he was convicted.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(d)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Bentley, 456 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“He further argues that the court erred in rul- ing that he did not qualify for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712 because the significant personal injury suffered by the victim was not a result of the crime of which he was convicted.”
State v. Arnold, 164 P.3d 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712, which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence of less than the mandatory minimum sentence otherwise required by ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(d)(B) — 1 case
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(d)(C) — 5 cases
State v. Arnold, 164 P.3d 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712, which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence of less than the mandatory minimum sentence otherwise required by ORS 137.”
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Crescencio-Paz, 103 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“The state appeals defendant’s sentence on his conviction of robbery in the second degree, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712 without making findings as to whether defendant was disqualified from a departure sentence…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(d)(D) — 1 case
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(2)(e) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 217 P.3d 659 (Or. 2009).
“[3] In ORS 137.712, the legislature provided for downward departures for certain offenses in certain circumstances.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(4) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(5) — 9 cases
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(a) — 1 case
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(a)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(a)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Carlton, 388 P.3d 1093 (Or. 2017).
“712(6)(a)(B), which provides that a conviction in another jurisdiction is a qualifying conviction if it “would constitute a crime listed in subsection (4) of [ORS 137.712],” and ORS 163A.020(6)(a), which provides that the reporting requirements for sex offenders apply to a…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(b) — 1 case
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(c) — 7 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Stone, 532 P.3d 90 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“The term “significant physical injury” appears in ORS 137.712 and affects sentencing. We have construed that term by looking to case law on “physical injury” and “seri- ous physical injury,” with the understanding that “signifi- cant physical injury” is meant to “fill in the gap.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(c)(A) — 4 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(c)(B) — 2 cases
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(c)(C) — 4 cases
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
State v. Drew, 460 P.3d 1032 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“700(2)(a)(G), contends the trial court erred in determining that the victim of the assault suffered a “significant physical injury” under ORS 137.712 (2)(b)(B), making defendant ineligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(6)(c)(D) — 1 case
State v. Kinsey, 426 P.3d 674 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“As explained below, we conclude that the evidence in the record-which includes evidence of a scar on the victim's scalp that was visible to the trier of fact over six months after the assault-is legally sufficient to support the trial court's determination that the *675 victim…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(l)(a) — 7 cases
State v. Arnold, 164 P.3d 334 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“On appeal, defendant asserts that the court erred in concluding that he was not eligible for a lesser sentence under ORS 137.712, which authorizes a trial court to impose a sentencing guidelines sentence of less than the mandatory minimum sentence otherwise required by ORS 137.”
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
State v. Brewer, 320 P.3d 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“She appeals the judgment imposing that sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred when it concluded that she did not qualify for a downward departure sentence under ORS 137.712. The state, in response, asserts first that, because defendant pleaded guilty, under ORS 138.”
State v. Isbell, 38 P.3d 272 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“The state agreed that defendant did not have a "previous conviction" with respect to the first robbery count and that ORS 137.712 authorized the court to impose a guidelines sentence on that count.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.712(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Ivie, 159 P.3d 1257 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“ORS 137.712 provides an exception to the mandatory minimum sentences for some of the offenses that are governed by Measure 11.”
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.