137.752
Requirements when defendant committed to custody of county. (1) When a court commits a
defendant to the custody of a supervisory authority of a county under ORS
137.124, the court shall order on the record in open court as part of the
sentence imposed that the defendant may be considered by the supervisory authority
for any form of alternative sanction authorized by ORS 423.478, unless the
court finds on the record in open court substantial and compelling reasons to
order that the defendant not be considered for alternative sanctions.
(2) The
supervisory authority may consider the defendant for alternative sanctions only
upon order of the sentencing court appearing in the judgment.
(3) As used in
this section, “supervisory authority” has the meaning given that term in ORS
144.087. [1997 c.313 §15]
Note: See note under 137.750.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case:
State v. Hammond, 180 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Hammond, 180 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 25× “570 or ORS 137.752." [5] The trial court denied that motion.”
State v. Vigil, 106 P.3d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “750; ORS 137.752. On appeal, defendant argues that, because the denial was based on a fact found by the court rather than by the jury, his sentence is unlawful under Apprendi v.”
State v. Schaefer, 118 P.3d 849 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“At sentencing, the court also stated to defendant that “you have shown * * * a propensity to combine substance abuse and driving which, of course, is a deadly combination.”
State v. Williams, 131 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 137.752. Thus, defendant received two concurrent 12-month sentences, as to each of which the trial court ordered that he may be considered for sentence modifications.”
State v. Jackson, 118 P.3d 849 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“Defendant later violated the conditions of his probation, the court revoked probation, and it executed a sentence of 12 months’ incarceration.”
State v. Moran, 341 Or. App. 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Defendant once again raised Miranda concerns, objecting that there was “a Miranda vio- lation as well as search and seizure Fourth Amendment,” asserting that he “should have been Mirandized prior to * * * 1 In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial…”
State v. Stone, 118 P.3d 830 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“As for the identify theft count, the court found that defendant was a “repeat property offender,” see ORS 137.”
State v. Palmer, 118 P.3d 853 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“750 and ORS 137.752 that defendant not be considered for early release or sentence reduction for the first 36 months of the sentence.”
State v. Courtney, 118 P.3d 858 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“750 and ORS 137.752 that defendant not be considered for early release or sentence reductions.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.752(1) — 4 cases
State v. Hammond, 180 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“570 or ORS 137.752." [5] The trial court denied that motion.”
State v. Vigil, 106 P.3d 656 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“750; ORS 137.752. On appeal, defendant argues that, because the denial was based on a fact found by the court rather than by the jury, his sentence is unlawful under Apprendi v.”
State v. Williams, 131 P.3d 767 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“See ORS 137.752. Thus, defendant received two concurrent 12-month sentences, as to each of which the trial court ordered that he may be considered for sentence modifications.”
State v. Moran, 341 Or. App. 309 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“Defendant once again raised Miranda concerns, objecting that there was “a Miranda vio- lation as well as search and seizure Fourth Amendment,” asserting that he “should have been Mirandized prior to * * * 1 In his second assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial…”
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.