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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.754 (2026)

Authority of court to modify judgment to comply with ORS 137.750 and 137.752

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

      137.754 Authority of court to modify judgment to comply with ORS 137.750 and 137.752. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a sentencing court retains authority after entry of a judgment of conviction to modify its judgment and sentence to comply with the requirements of ORS 137.750 or 137.752 when:

      (1) The judgment was entered on or after December 5, 1996;

      (2) The crime of conviction was committed on or after December 5, 1996; and

      (3) The judgment and sentence failed to comply with the provisions of ORS 137.750 or 137.752. [1997 c.313 §16]

 

      Note: See note under 137.750.

 

SEXUALLY VIOLENT DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2008–2015 · leading case: State v. Hammond, 180 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hammond, 180 P.3d 137 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 52× “" Thereafter, and before filing a notice of appeal, defendant filed a motion under ORS 137.754 "to modify [the] judgment and sentence to comply with the requirements of ORS 137.”
State v. Lewallen, 324 P.3d 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “In 2010, defendant filed a motion to modify the judgment pursuant to ORS 137.754 and ORS 138.083. 2 Defendant requested that the court (1) modify the judgment to expressly state that he was eligible for sentence-modification programs, (2) merge the two robbery convictions into a…”
State v. Pierce, 358 P.3d 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “754, defendant may request that the trial court modify its judgment, if defendant believes that there are additional programs for which defendant is “otherwise eligible” and for which the court has not found “substantial and compelling reasons” to deny defendant consideration.”
State v. Harding, 193 P.3d 1055 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). “Accordingly, the court entered an amended judgment that remedied the first error but retained *418 the provision from the earlier judgment that defendant would serve a departure sentence on the attempted murder conviction on the basis of findings made by the court.”
State v. Sager, 274 P.3d 890 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “In 2009, defendant moved for a corrected judgment pursuant to ORS 137.754. 1 In a document entitled “Judgment of Conviction and Sentence,” the trial court denied the motion for entry of a corrected judgment.”
State v. Sager, 274 P.3d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “*256 PER CURIAM Defendant, who was convicted of assaulting a public safety officer, seeks to appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for a corrected judgment pursuant to ORS 137.754. 1 As explained in State v. Sager (A143978), 249 Or App 251 , 274 P3d 890 (2012), when…”
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.