Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.791 (2026)

Presentence report in felony conviction cases; when required

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

144.791 Presentence report in felony conviction cases; when required. (1) When a person is convicted of a felony, including a felony sexual offense, the sentencing court may order a presentence report upon its own motion or upon the request of the district attorney or the defendant.

(2) The sentencing court shall order a presentence report if the defendant is convicted of a felony sexual offense unless:

(a) The defendant, as part of the same prosecution, is convicted of aggravated murder;

(b) The felony sexual offense requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum prison sentence and no departure is sought by the court, district attorney or defendant; or

(c) The felony sexual offense requires imposition of a presumptive prison sentence and no departure is sought by the court, district attorney or defendant.

(3) The Department of Corrections shall:

(a) Require that a presentence report provide an analysis of what disposition is most likely to reduce the offender’s criminal conduct, explain why that disposition would have that effect and provide an assessment of the availability to the offender of any relevant programs or treatment in or out of custody, whether provided by the department or another entity;

(b) Determine what additional information must be included in the presentence report; and

(c) Establish a uniform presentence report form. [1995 c.520 §4 (enacted in lieu of 144.790); 2005 c.473 §1]

144.795 [1981 c.136 §2; repealed by 1985 c.503 §4]

144.800 [1985 c.503 §2; 1987 c.320 §83; 1989 c.790 §8b; repealed by 1995 c.520 §7]

_______________

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: State v. Nygaard, 466 P.3d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Nygaard, 466 P.3d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “In a supplemental assignment of error, defendant makes an unpreserved argument that the trial court failed to order a presentence report as generally is required under ORS 144.791 when a defendant is convicted of a felony sex- ual offense and, as happened here, a party advocates…”

Weidner v. Armenakis, 959 P.2d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “125," to acquire information other than a psychiatric or psychological diagnosis, including: "(1) Any relevant information which may be submitted by the prisoner, the prisoner's attorney, the victim of the crime, the Department of Correction, or by other persons; "(2) The…”

Weems v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 227 P.3d 671 (Or. 2010). “098(1), the board may interview the individual offender and also may consider: “(a) Reports of any physical, psychiatric or psychological examinations of the inmate; “(b) The presentence investigation report specified by ORS 144.791 or, if no such report has been prepared, a…”

State v. Gardner-Rolph, 345 Or. App. 681 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “, ORS 144.791, we assign little importance to the legislature’s inclusion of that phrase, and it does not elucidate nor obfuscate the statute’s meaning.”

State v. Walker, 493 P.3d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “Walker PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for sod- omy in the first degree, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order a presentence report as required by ORS 144.791(2) (mandating that a trial court “shall” order a pre- sentence report in felony…”

State v. Phillips, 490 P.3d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “He argues that the trial court committed legal error by sentencing him for a felony sexual offense without first receiving a presentence investigation report (PSI), as required by ORS 144.791. The state responds that defendant waived his right to a PSI, as permitted by the 2005…”

State v. Jarvis, 338 Or. App. 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “In a single assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred because the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) did not satisfy ORS 144.791(3).1 We affirm. On appeal, defendant specifically argues that the PSI failed to comply with ORS 144.”

State v. Gardner-Rolph, 345 Or. App. 681 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “, ORS 144.791, we assign little importance to the legislature’s inclusion of that phrase, and it does not elucidate nor obfuscate the statute’s meaning.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.791(1) — 1 case

State v. Nygaard, 466 P.3d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In a supplemental assignment of error, defendant makes an unpreserved argument that the trial court failed to order a presentence report as generally is required under ORS 144.791 when a defendant is convicted of a felony sex- ual offense and, as happened here, a party advocates…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.791(2) — 3 cases

State v. Nygaard, 466 P.3d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “In a supplemental assignment of error, defendant makes an unpreserved argument that the trial court failed to order a presentence report as generally is required under ORS 144.791 when a defendant is convicted of a felony sex- ual offense and, as happened here, a party advocates…”

State v. Walker, 493 P.3d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Walker PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for sod- omy in the first degree, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order a presentence report as required by ORS 144.791(2) (mandating that a trial court “shall” order a pre- sentence report in felony…”

State v. Phillips, 490 P.3d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “He argues that the trial court committed legal error by sentencing him for a felony sexual offense without first receiving a presentence investigation report (PSI), as required by ORS 144.791. The state responds that defendant waived his right to a PSI, as permitted by the 2005…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.791(2)(b) — 2 cases

State v. Walker, 493 P.3d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “Walker PER CURIAM Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for sod- omy in the first degree, arguing that the trial court erred in declining to order a presentence report as required by ORS 144.791(2) (mandating that a trial court “shall” order a pre- sentence report in felony…”

State v. Phillips, 490 P.3d 180 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “He argues that the trial court committed legal error by sentencing him for a felony sexual offense without first receiving a presentence investigation report (PSI), as required by ORS 144.791. The state responds that defendant waived his right to a PSI, as permitted by the 2005…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 144.791(3) — 1 case

State v. Jarvis, 338 Or. App. 500 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “In a single assignment of error, he argues that the trial court erred because the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) did not satisfy ORS 144.791(3).1 We affirm. On appeal, defendant specifically argues that the PSI failed to comply with ORS 144.”

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.