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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079 (2026)

Determination of total term of certain consecutive sentences of imprisonment; summing of sentences; exceptions

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

      144.079 Determination of total term of certain consecutive sentences of imprisonment; summing of sentences; exceptions. (1)(a) If a prisoner is sentenced to terms of imprisonment that are consecutive to one another and result from crimes committed during the period before the prisoner’s first initial parole hearing, or if a prisoner is sentenced to terms of imprisonment that are consecutive to one another and result from crimes committed during the period between any two initial parole hearings, the total term resulting from the crimes committed during each such separate period shall be determined by the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision as follows, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, and the total terms so determined shall then be summed as provided in ORS 144.783 (1):

      (A) First, the board shall establish the appropriate range for the felony determined by the board, according to its rules, to be the most serious of the felonies committed during the period. If two or more felonies are determined to be equally the most serious, the board shall establish the appropriate range under this paragraph only for one of those felonies.

      (B) Second, the board shall establish a range for each of the remaining felonies committed during the same period. For purposes of establishing the ranges for the remaining felonies under this paragraph, the board shall not consider prior criminal history.

      (C) Third, the board shall determine the total range applicable in the offender’s case for crimes committed during the same period by summing the ranges established under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph with the range established under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and shall determine an appropriate term within that range.

      (D) Finally, the board shall vary the term determined under subparagraph (C) of this paragraph according to rules established under ORS 144.785 (1), if the board finds aggravating or mitigating factors in the case. The board shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the prisoner has been sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.

      (b) Whenever a prisoner is committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections for a crime that was committed during a period already considered at an initial parole hearing and upon a sentence consecutive to any sentence imposed for crimes committed during that period, the board shall conduct a hearing to consider the previously unconsidered crime. The hearing shall be a hearing supplemental to the original initial hearing concerning crimes committed during the period. Time limitations and other procedural provisions applicable to initial hearings shall apply to a supplemental hearing under this subsection. Upon conclusion of the supplemental hearing, the board shall redetermine the appropriate total term for the period. The redetermination shall be conducted de novo under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

      (2) The method established by this section for determining, where applicable, the total term resulting from the summing of consecutive sentences shall apply only if none of the crimes involved is:

      (a) Murder in any degree, as defined in ORS 163.107 or 163.115, or any aggravated form thereof;

      (b) Assault in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.185;

      (c) Kidnapping in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.235;

      (d) Rape in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.375;

      (e) Sodomy in the first degree, as defined in ORS 163.405;

      (f) Unlawful sexual penetration, as defined in ORS 163.411;

      (g) Arson in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.325; or

      (h) Treason, as defined in ORS 166.005.

      (3) The duration of imprisonment pursuant to consecutive sentences may be less than the sum of the terms under subsection (1) of this section if the board finds, by affirmative vote of a majority of three board members or, if the chairperson requires all voting members to participate, a majority of all voting members, that consecutive sentences are not appropriate penalties for the criminal offenses involved and that the combined terms of imprisonment are not necessary to protect community security.

      (4) The board shall use the method set forth in subsections (1) to (3) of this section to determine the parole release date for any person serving a sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections for crimes committed before or after July 11, 1987. [1987 c.634 §§4,7; 1989 c.641 §1; 1991 c.126 §4; 1991 c.386 §7; 2015 c.820 §42; 2019 c.635 §12]

 

      Note: 144.079 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 144 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.

 

      144.080 [Amended by 1955 c.688 §4; repealed by 1969 c.597 §281]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 623 (Or. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 623 (Or. 2025). “” When that is noted on a judgment, in my experience, the vast majority of the time, the parties and the court envi- sion that the credit will be applied against the total period of incarceration, which typically occurs by applying it against the “primary” offense of conviction,…”
Plane v. Bd. of Parole, 834 P.2d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “” That section is codified as ORS 144.079, which in turn contains an exemption in subsection (2): “The method established by this section for determining, where applicable, the total term resulting from the summing of consecutive sentences shall apply only if none of the crimes…”
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 10× “Petitioner sought administrative review of the board’s decision, arguing, among other things, that the board was required to “sum and/or unsum” his consecutive prison terms for aggravated murder and first-degree rob- bery pursuant to ORS 144.079 and ORS 144.783 and the board’s…”
State Ex Rel. Engweiler v. Cook, 103 P.3d 1205 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “780(1) (requiring board to establish ranges for “duration of imprisonment to be served”); see also ORS 144.079; ORS 144.775(7); ORS 144.783; ORS 144.”
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
Durham v. Palmateer, 91 P.3d 834 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “In 1992, the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (board) issued an order establishing plaintiffs projected parole release date according to the procedures and standards set out in ORS 144.079, which was enacted after plaintiff committed his crimes.”
Keenan v. Bd. of Parole, 834 P.2d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “1 We agree that ORS 144.079 and, therefore, factor 0, do not apply.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(1)(a)(A): 1 case
Arellano-Sanchez v. Thrasher, 374 Or. 623 (Or. 2025). “” When that is noted on a judgment, in my experience, the vast majority of the time, the parties and the court envi- sion that the credit will be applied against the total period of incarceration, which typically occurs by applying it against the “primary” offense of conviction,…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(2): 4 cases
Plane v. Bd. of Parole, 834 P.2d 549 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “” That section is codified as ORS 144.079, which in turn contains an exemption in subsection (2): “The method established by this section for determining, where applicable, the total term resulting from the summing of consecutive sentences shall apply only if none of the crimes…”
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Petitioner sought administrative review of the board’s decision, arguing, among other things, that the board was required to “sum and/or unsum” his consecutive prison terms for aggravated murder and first-degree rob- bery pursuant to ORS 144.079 and ORS 144.783 and the board’s…”
Keenan v. Bd. of Parole, 834 P.2d 546 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). “1 We agree that ORS 144.079 and, therefore, factor 0, do not apply.”
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(2)(a): 2 cases
Barrett v. Bd. of Parole (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Petitioner sought administrative review of the board’s decision, arguing, among other things, that the board was required to “sum and/or unsum” his consecutive prison terms for aggravated murder and first-degree rob- bery pursuant to ORS 144.079 and ORS 144.783 and the board’s…”
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(l): 1 case
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(l)(a): 1 case
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.079(l)(a)(D): 1 case
Hancock v. Bd. of Parole, 805 P.2d 751 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “That violates ORS 144.079(2). Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.”
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.