137.750
Sentencing requirements concerning defendant’s eligibility for certain types of
leave, release or programs.
(1) When a court sentences a defendant to a term of incarceration upon
conviction of a crime, the court shall order on the record in open court as
part of the sentence imposed that the defendant may be considered by the
executing or releasing authority for any form of temporary leave from custody,
reduction in sentence, work release or program of conditional or supervised
release authorized by law for which the defendant is otherwise eligible at the
time of sentencing, unless the court finds on the record in open court
substantial and compelling reasons to order that the defendant not be
considered for such leave, release or program.
(2) The executing
or releasing authority may consider the defendant for a program described in
subsection (1) of this section only upon order of the sentencing court
appearing in the judgment.
(3) As used in
this section:
(a) “Executing or
releasing authority” means the Department of Corrections, State Board of Parole
and Post-Prison Supervision, Oregon Youth Authority, Psychiatric Security
Review Board, sentencing court or supervisory authority.
(b) “Supervisory
authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS 144.087. [1997 c.313 §14;
2008 c.35 §2; 2011 c.708 §19; 2013 c.229 §8; 2017 c.442 §17]
Note: 137.750 to 137.754 were enacted
into law by the Legislative Assembly but were 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
101
cases (
25 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
State v. Hammond
State v. Hammond (2008)
orctapp · cites it 38×
“With respect to preservation, defendant acknowledges that his counsel was present when the court pronounced sentence but failed to make the findings described in ORS 137.750(1) and ORS 137.”
State v. Berger (2017)
orctapp · cites it 20×
“In his sentencing memorandum, defendant argued that, under ORS 137.750, “the court does not have the authority to deny a defendant eligibility for ‘reduction in sentence [;] ’ [o]nly the Department of Corrections, pursuant to ORS 421.”
State v. Clark (2006)
orctapp · cites it 15×
“For three of the convictions, each for identity theft, the court imposed consecutive sentences and, pursuant to ORS 137.750, denied consideration for leave, release, or other sentence modification programs.”
State v. Ivie (2007)
orctapp · cites it 11×
“The trial court entered a judgment revoking his probation, committing him to the custody of the Department of Corrections for 70 months, and denying consideration under ORS 137.750 for sentence modification programs.”
State v. Hikes (2014)
orctapp · cites it 13×
“The trial court revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison, and also denied defendant’s eligibility for early release or alternative incarceration programs (AIP) under ORS 137.750. On appeal, defendant does not challenge the revocation of his…”
State v. Walraven (2016)
orctapp · cites it 5×
“In the alternative, the state argued that, even if this court were to conclude that juveniles convicted of aggravated murder may be eligible for a second-look hearing, defendant remains ineligible because the particular judgment entered in his case precluded any form of early…”
State v. Casiano (2007)
orctapp · cites it 13×
“) On the form of judgment, there is a preprinted section relating to consideration for sentence modifications *513 under a different statute, ORS 137.750. 2 The section is preceded by a check box and also states that the defendant “may be considered for” such programs “unless…”
State v. Grimes (1999)
orctapp · cites it 14×
“His principal contention is that the trial court erred in applying ORS 137.750 to prevent him from being eligible for good-time sentence reduction.”
State v. Opitz (2015)
orctapp · cites it 11×
“In his second assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court committed plain error by denying him “eligibility for sentence modification programs under ORS 137.750.” 1 The state contends that the trial court did not commit plain error by denying defendant…”
State v. Pierce (2015)
orctapp · cites it 9×
“She assigns error to the trial court’s determination that she cannot be considered for certain programs under ORS 137.750. In particular, defendant contends that the trial court’s determination is erroneous because the court did not find on the record that there were…”
State v. Brunoe (2006)
orctapp · cites it 4×
“747 and ORS 137.750. Johnson, 339 Or at 90 . Here, although the trial court made its decision before the court in Johnson set forth the above-described test *759 for the inquiry under ORS 137.”
State v. Goodenough (2014)
orctapp · cites it 7×
“6 See Or Laws 2008, ch 35, § 2 (Spec Sess) (removing references to AIPs in ORS 137.750); Or Laws 2008, ch 35, § 1 (Spec Sess) (enacting ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.750(1) — 42 cases
State v. Hammond (2008)
orctapp
“With respect to preservation, defendant acknowledges that his counsel was present when the court pronounced sentence but failed to make the findings described in ORS 137.750(1) and ORS 137.”
State v. Berger (2017)
orctapp
“In his sentencing memorandum, defendant argued that, under ORS 137.750, “the court does not have the authority to deny a defendant eligibility for ‘reduction in sentence [;] ’ [o]nly the Department of Corrections, pursuant to ORS 421.”
State v. Goodenough (2014)
orctapp
“6 See Or Laws 2008, ch 35, § 2 (Spec Sess) (removing references to AIPs in ORS 137.750); Or Laws 2008, ch 35, § 1 (Spec Sess) (enacting ORS 137.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.750(2) — 2 cases
State v. Walraven (2016)
orctapp
“In the alternative, the state argued that, even if this court were to conclude that juveniles convicted of aggravated murder may be eligible for a second-look hearing, defendant remains ineligible because the particular judgment entered in his case precluded any form of early…”
State v. Berger (2017)
orctapp
“In his sentencing memorandum, defendant argued that, under ORS 137.750, “the court does not have the authority to deny a defendant eligibility for ‘reduction in sentence [;] ’ [o]nly the Department of Corrections, pursuant to ORS 421.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.750(3) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.750(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Berger (2017)
orctapp
“In his sentencing memorandum, defendant argued that, under ORS 137.750, “the court does not have the authority to deny a defendant eligibility for ‘reduction in sentence [;] ’ [o]nly the Department of Corrections, pursuant to ORS 421.”
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.