809.235
Permanent revocation of driving privileges upon conviction of certain crimes;
restoration of privileges.
(1)(a) Notwithstanding ORS 809.409 (2), the court shall order that a person’s
driving privileges be permanently revoked if the person is convicted of any
degree of murder and the court finds that the person intentionally used a motor
vehicle as a dangerous weapon resulting in the death of the victim, or if the
person is convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide, manslaughter in the first
or second degree resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle, criminally
negligent homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle or assault
in the first degree resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.
(b) The court
shall order that a person’s driving privileges be permanently revoked if the
person is convicted of felony driving while under the influence of intoxicants
in violation of ORS 813.010 or if the person is convicted for a third or
subsequent time of any of the following offenses in any combination:
(A) Driving while
under the influence of intoxicants in violation of:
(i) ORS 813.010;
or
(ii) The
statutory counterpart to ORS 813.010 in another jurisdiction.
(B) A driving
under the influence of intoxicants offense in another jurisdiction that
involved the impaired driving of a vehicle due to the use of an intoxicant or a
combination of intoxicants.
(C) A driving
offense in another jurisdiction that involved operating a vehicle while having
a blood alcohol content above that jurisdiction’s permissible blood alcohol
content.
(c) For the
purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection, a conviction for a driving
offense in another jurisdiction based solely on a person under 21 years of age
having a blood alcohol content that is lower than the permissible blood alcohol
content in that jurisdiction for a person 21 years of age or older does not
constitute a prior conviction.
(2)(a) A person
whose driving privileges are revoked as described in subsection (1) of this
section may file a petition in the circuit court of the county in which the
person’s driving privileges were revoked for an order restoring the person’s
driving privileges. A petition may be filed under this subsection no sooner
than 10 years after the person is:
(A) Released on
parole or post-prison supervision for the crime for which the person’s driving
privileges were revoked and any other crimes arising out of the same criminal
episode;
(B) Sentenced to
probation for the crime for which the person’s driving privileges were revoked,
unless the probation is revoked, in which case the petition may be filed no
sooner than 10 years after the date probation is revoked; or
(C) Sentenced for
the crime for which the person’s driving privileges were revoked, if no other
provision of this paragraph applies.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if during the revocation
period for the crime for which the person was convicted the person is convicted
of a criminal offense involving a motor vehicle, the person may file a petition
to restore driving privileges as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection
no sooner than 10 years from the date of the most recent conviction involving a
motor vehicle.
(c) The district
attorney of the county in which the person’s driving privileges were revoked
shall be named and served as the respondent in the petition.
(3) The court
shall hold a hearing on a petition filed in accordance with subsection (2) of
this section. In determining whether to grant the petition, the court shall
consider:
(a) The nature of
the offense for which driving privileges were revoked.
(b) The degree of
violence involved in the offense.
(c) Other
criminal and relevant noncriminal behavior of the petitioner both before and
after the conviction that resulted in the revocation.
(d) The
recommendation of the person’s parole officer, which shall be based in part on
a psychological evaluation ordered by the court to determine whether the person
is presently a threat to the safety of the public.
(e) Any other
relevant factors.
(4) The court
shall order a petitioner’s driving privileges restored if, after a hearing
described in subsection (3) of this section, the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the petitioner:
(a) Is
rehabilitated;
(b) Does not pose
a threat to the safety of the public; and
(c) If the
sentence for the crime for which the petitioner’s driving privileges were
revoked required the petitioner to complete an alcohol or drug treatment
program, has completed an alcohol or drug treatment program in a facility
approved by the Director of the Oregon Health Authority or a similar program in
another jurisdiction.
(5) Upon
receiving a court order to restore a person’s driving privileges, the
department may reinstate driving privileges in accordance with ORS 809.390,
except that the department may not reinstate driving privileges of any person
whose privileges are revoked under this section until the person complies with
future responsibility filings.
(6) The
provisions of this section do not apply to convictions of driving while under
the influence of intoxicants if the offense was committed while the person was
riding a bicycle.
(7) For the
purposes of this section, “bicycle” does not include an electric assisted
bicycle. [1993 c.761 §2; 1995 c.661 §2; 2001 c.786 §1; 2003 c.346 §2; 2003
c.402 §22; 2005 c.436 §1; 2007 c.879 §4; 2009 c.320 §1; 2011 c.355 §12; 2011
c.554 §1; 2017 c.21 §78; 2021 c.253 §3; 2023 c.498 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case:
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 111× “In this case, the state argues, the trial court's revocation of defendant's driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235 is, technically, not part of a "sentence" within the meaning of the statute.”
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 67× “Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
State v. Kellar, 247 P.3d 1232 (Or. 2011).
· cites it 30× “See ORS 809.235. The question that this case presents is whether a conviction for DUII in violation of former ORS 487.”
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 21× “020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.235, provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To…”
State v. Hamann, 422 P.3d 193 (Or. 2018).
· cites it 20× “Thus, whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of defendant's uncounseled Georgia conviction to support the *196 permanent revocation of defendant's driving privileges under ORS 809.235 boils down to whether the revocation of driving privileges is essentially a "civil…”
State v. Dawson, 369 P.3d 1244 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “Defendant acknowledges that we held in Vazquez-Escobar that the permanent revocation of driving privileges under ORS 809.235 is not “greater or additional punishment” for purposes of an ex post facto challenge under Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article…”
State v. Koelzer, 534 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “Koelzer During the sentencing proceeding, the state asked the court, among other things, to permanently revoke defen- dant’s driving privileges under ORS 809.235, asserting that this was her third DUII conviction.”
State v. Guzman/Heckler, 455 P.3d 485 (Or. 2019).
· cites it 2× “011 elevates DUII to a felony upon a third conviction, and ORS 809.235(1)(b)(A)(ii) triggers a permanent license suspension upon a third con- viction.”
State v. Abbey, 245 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 14× “” Defendant also contends that application of ORS 809.235(l)(b) denies him equal privileges under Article I, section 20, as a member of a “true class of individuals that operate non-motorized vehicles on public highways.”
State v. Nelson, 505 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “ORS 809.235 requires a court to perma- nently revoke a DUII defendant’s driving privileges if the defendant has two prior convictions for DUII under ORS 813.”
State v. Nave, 164 P.3d 1219 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“Because this is his third DUII conviction, the trial court permanently revoked defendant’s driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235(l)(b) (2003), amended by Or Laws 2005, ch 436, § 1.”
State v. McCabe, 343 Or. App. 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 6× “He seeks reversal of the portion of the judgment in which the trial court permanently revoked his driver’s license after deter- mining that the DUII conviction was defendant’s third due to a prior Pennsylvania conviction that qualified as a “statutory counterpart” to Oregon’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1) — 5 cases
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.235, provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To…”
State v. McCabe, 343 Or. App. 107 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
“He seeks reversal of the portion of the judgment in which the trial court permanently revoked his driver’s license after deter- mining that the DUII conviction was defendant’s third due to a prior Pennsylvania conviction that qualified as a “statutory counterpart” to Oregon’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b) — 11 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“In this case, the state argues, the trial court's revocation of defendant's driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235 is, technically, not part of a "sentence" within the meaning of the statute.”
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
State v. Hamann, 422 P.3d 193 (Or. 2018).
“Thus, whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of defendant's uncounseled Georgia conviction to support the *196 permanent revocation of defendant's driving privileges under ORS 809.235 boils down to whether the revocation of driving privileges is essentially a "civil…”
State v. Koelzer, 534 P.3d 299 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Koelzer During the sentencing proceeding, the state asked the court, among other things, to permanently revoke defen- dant’s driving privileges under ORS 809.235, asserting that this was her third DUII conviction.”
State v. Dawson, 369 P.3d 1244 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“Defendant acknowledges that we held in Vazquez-Escobar that the permanent revocation of driving privileges under ORS 809.235 is not “greater or additional punishment” for purposes of an ex post facto challenge under Article I, section 21, of the Oregon Constitution and Article…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b)(A) — 2 cases
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b)(A)(i) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b)(A)(ii) — 2 cases
State v. Guzman/Heckler, 455 P.3d 485 (Or. 2019).
“011 elevates DUII to a felony upon a third conviction, and ORS 809.235(1)(b)(A)(ii) triggers a permanent license suspension upon a third con- viction.”
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b)(B) — 3 cases
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(1)(b)(C) — 1 case
State v. Nelson, 505 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“ORS 809.235 requires a court to perma- nently revoke a DUII defendant’s driving privileges if the defendant has two prior convictions for DUII under ORS 813.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(2) — 3 cases
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.235, provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To…”
State v. Ramirez, 493 P.3d 522 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Furthermore, we need not address defendant’s related but undevel- oped argument that the trial court erred in imposing a fine, although we note that the court indicated that it was exercising its discretion in determining the amount of the fine and not strictly relying on the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(2)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Kellar, 247 P.3d 1232 (Or. 2011).
“See ORS 809.235. The question that this case presents is whether a conviction for DUII in violation of former ORS 487.”
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.235, provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To…”
State v. Hamann, 422 P.3d 193 (Or. 2018).
“Thus, whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of defendant's uncounseled Georgia conviction to support the *196 permanent revocation of defendant's driving privileges under ORS 809.235 boils down to whether the revocation of driving privileges is essentially a "civil…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(4) — 1 case
State v. Hamann, 422 P.3d 193 (Or. 2018).
“Thus, whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of defendant's uncounseled Georgia conviction to support the *196 permanent revocation of defendant's driving privileges under ORS 809.235 boils down to whether the revocation of driving privileges is essentially a "civil…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(l)(b) — 15 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 175 P.3d 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“In this case, the state argues, the trial court's revocation of defendant's driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235 is, technically, not part of a "sentence" within the meaning of the statute.”
State v. Vazquez-Escobar, 153 P.3d 168 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“020(11), which states the general purposes of the Oregon Vehicle Code, including ORS 809.235, provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state: “(a) To provide maximum safety for all persons who travel or otherwise use the public highways of this state; “(b) To…”
State v. Kellar, 247 P.3d 1232 (Or. 2011).
“See ORS 809.235. The question that this case presents is whether a conviction for DUII in violation of former ORS 487.”
State v. Abbey, 245 P.3d 152 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“” Defendant also contends that application of ORS 809.235(l)(b) denies him equal privileges under Article I, section 20, as a member of a “true class of individuals that operate non-motorized vehicles on public highways.”
State v. Nave, 164 P.3d 1219 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“Because this is his third DUII conviction, the trial court permanently revoked defendant’s driving privileges pursuant to ORS 809.235(l)(b) (2003), amended by Or Laws 2005, ch 436, § 1.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(l)(b)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.235(l)(b)(A)(i) — 1 case
State v. Kellar, 247 P.3d 1232 (Or. 2011).
“See ORS 809.235. The question that this case presents is whether a conviction for DUII in violation of former ORS 487.”
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.