419C.501
Duration of disposition.
(1) The court shall fix the duration of any disposition made pursuant to this
chapter and the duration may be for an indefinite period. Any placement in the
legal custody of the Department of Human Services or the Oregon Youth Authority
under ORS 419C.478 or placement under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric
Security Review Board under ORS 419C.529 shall be for an indefinite period.
However, the period of institutionalization or commitment may not exceed:
(a) The period of
time specified in the statute defining the crime for an act that would
constitute an unclassified misdemeanor if committed by an adult;
(b) Thirty days
for an act that would constitute a Class C misdemeanor if committed by an
adult;
(c) Six months
for an act that would constitute a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an
adult;
(d) Three hundred
sixty-four days for an act that would constitute a Class A misdemeanor if
committed by an adult;
(e) Five years
for an act that would constitute a Class C felony if committed by an adult;
(f) Ten years for
an act that would constitute a Class B felony if committed by an adult;
(g) Twenty years
for an act that would constitute a Class A felony if committed by an adult; and
(h) Life for a
young person who was found to have committed an act that, if committed by an
adult would constitute murder or any aggravated form of murder under ORS
163.095, 163.107 or 163.115.
(2) Except as
provided in subsection (1)(h) of this section, the period of any disposition
may not extend beyond the date on which the young person or adjudicated youth
becomes 25 years of age. [1993 c.33 §246; 1995 c.422 §85; 1999 c.964 §1; 2005
c.843 §11; 2017 c.706 §23; 2019 c.635 §26; 2021 c.489 §89]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case:
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 20× “The issue in this case is whether, when a youth commits a new offense while already in OYA custody, the juvenile court’s disposition can impose a new period of commitment to run consecutively to the period of commitment that the youth has not yet completed.”
State v. B. Y., 510 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 19× “Specifically, youth notes that, under the current version of the statute that governs maximum dispositions, ORS 419C.501, there is no authority granting a juvenile court permission to impose consecutive commitments.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Johnson, 7 P.3d 529 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 28× “Child contends that it was error under ORS 419C.501 (1997) 1 to commit her to OYA custody for a period of time that is greater than the maximum period of time authorized by the sentencing guidelines if the act had been committed by an adult.”
State v. J. R., 507 P.3d 778 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 8× “or commitment” provided in ORS 419C.501. As explained below, we conclude that that issue is moot and does not sat- isfy the requirements for review under ORS 14.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Hal, 7 P.3d 535 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Youth next challenges the juvenile court’s authority to commit him to the custody of the OYA for up to five years.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “4 We note, however, that the maximum periods set out in ORS 419C.501 apply only to "institutionalization or commitment”; they do not apply to probation orders.”
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.), 426 P.3d 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“See ORS 419C.501, ORS 419C.504. To the extent that the state argues that the "conduct" alleged to be at issue in the probation violation proceeding was youth's expulsion, rather than the underlying fighting, we reject that assertion.”
State v. Barrett, 255 P.3d 472 (Or. 2011).
“411 (setting out contents of disposition order); ORS 419C.501 (permissible durations for various types of dispositions).”
State v. M. A. S., 462 P.3d 284 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“400(5) (‘An adjudication by a juvenile court that a youth is within its jurisdiction is not a conviction of a crime or offense.’). The second is the juvenile court’s deter- mination of the proper consequences that should follow from the adjudication.”
State v. Lawler, 927 P.2d 99 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).
“See former ORS 419C.501. That is a lower sentence, defendant contends, than one authorized for a juvenile in the same age group charged with the lesser-included offense of murder.”
State v. F. T., 503 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 419C.501(1)(c), (d) (providing a six-month maximum for a 1 ORS 14.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(1) — 2 cases
State v. B. Y., 510 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Specifically, youth notes that, under the current version of the statute that governs maximum dispositions, ORS 419C.501, there is no authority granting a juvenile court permission to impose consecutive commitments.”
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
“The issue in this case is whether, when a youth commits a new offense while already in OYA custody, the juvenile court’s disposition can impose a new period of commitment to run consecutively to the period of commitment that the youth has not yet completed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. F. T., 503 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“See ORS 419C.501(1)(c), (d) (providing a six-month maximum for a 1 ORS 14.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(1)(d) — 3 cases
State v. B. Y., 510 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Specifically, youth notes that, under the current version of the statute that governs maximum dispositions, ORS 419C.501, there is no authority granting a juvenile court permission to impose consecutive commitments.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. F. T., 503 P.3d 1281 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“See ORS 419C.501(1)(c), (d) (providing a six-month maximum for a 1 ORS 14.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(1)(f) — 1 case
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
“The issue in this case is whether, when a youth commits a new offense while already in OYA custody, the juvenile court’s disposition can impose a new period of commitment to run consecutively to the period of commitment that the youth has not yet completed.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(2) — 2 cases
State v. B. Y., 537 P.3d 517 (Or. 2023).
“The issue in this case is whether, when a youth commits a new offense while already in OYA custody, the juvenile court’s disposition can impose a new period of commitment to run consecutively to the period of commitment that the youth has not yet completed.”
State v. B. Y., 510 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Specifically, youth notes that, under the current version of the statute that governs maximum dispositions, ORS 419C.501, there is no authority granting a juvenile court permission to impose consecutive commitments.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(l)(c) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Rial, 46 P.3d 217 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“4 We note, however, that the maximum periods set out in ORS 419C.501 apply only to "institutionalization or commitment”; they do not apply to probation orders.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.501(lXe) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Johnson, 7 P.3d 529 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).
“Child contends that it was error under ORS 419C.501 (1997) 1 to commit her to OYA custody for a period of time that is greater than the maximum period of time authorized by the sentencing guidelines if the act had been committed by an adult.”
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.