Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.715 (2026)

Standards for discharge of defendant

✓ current as of May 2026

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

161.715 Standards for discharge of defendant. (1) Any court empowered to suspend imposition or execution of sentence or to sentence a defendant to probation may discharge the defendant if:

(a) The conviction is for an offense other than murder, treason or a Class A or B felony; and

(b) The court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release.

(2) If a sentence of discharge is imposed for a felony, the court shall set forth in the record the reasons for its action.

(3) If the court imposes a sentence of discharge, the defendant shall be released with respect to the conviction for which the sentence is imposed without imprisonment, probationary supervision or conditions. The judgment entered by the court shall include a monetary obligation payable to the state in an amount equal to the minimum fine for the offense established by ORS 137.286.

(4) If a defendant pleads not guilty and is tried and found guilty, a sentence of discharge is a judgment on a conviction for all purposes, including an appeal by the defendant.

(5) If a defendant pleads guilty, a sentence of discharge is not appealable, but for all other purposes is a judgment on a conviction. [1971 c.743 §84; 1993 c.14 §20; 2003 c.576 §249; 2011 c.597 §20]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1990 · leading case: State v. Cargill, 786 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Cargill, 786 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “010(7)(d); ORS 161.715. 1 We reverse. Defendants stood on a sidewalk between the parking lot of the Fred Meyer store at 3805 S.”

State v. Gortmaker, 655 P.2d 575 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “ORS 161.715. [19] Allowing for the need to conceal the identity of informants and even the need to conceal the cases in which informants were used, that does not explain why it was necessary for defendant to draw the funds for himself and split the claimed expenses among travel,…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.715(4) — 1 case

State v. Cargill, 786 P.2d 208 (Or. Ct. App. 1990). “010(7)(d); ORS 161.715. 1 We reverse. Defendants stood on a sidewalk between the parking lot of the Fred Meyer store at 3805 S.”

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.