813.200 Notice
of availability of diversion; petition; form; contents. (1) The court shall inform at
arraignment a defendant charged with the offense of driving while under the
influence of intoxicants as defined in ORS 813.010 or a city ordinance
conforming thereto that a diversion agreement may be available if the defendant
meets the criteria set out in ORS 813.215 and files with the court a petition
for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement.
(2) The petition
forms for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion
agreement shall be available to a defendant at the court.
(3) The form of
the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion
agreement and the information and blanks contained therein shall be determined
by the Supreme Court under ORS 1.525. The petition forms made available to a
defendant by any city or state court shall conform to the requirements adopted
by the Supreme Court.
(4) In addition
to any other information required by the Supreme Court to be contained in a
petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion
agreement, the petition shall include:
(a) A plea of
guilty or no contest to the charge of driving while under the influence of
intoxicants signed by the defendant;
(b) An agreement
by the defendant to complete at an agency or organization designated by the
city or state court a screening interview to determine the possible existence
and degree of an alcohol or drug abuse problem;
(c) An agreement
by the defendant to complete, at defendant’s own expense based on defendant’s
ability to pay, the program of treatment:
(A) Indicated as
necessary by the screening interview; or
(B) If ordered by
the court under ORS 813.640 after the court receives at least two negative
reports;
(d) Except as
provided in subsection (5) of this section, an agreement by the defendant to
not use intoxicants during the diversion period and to comply fully with the
laws of this state designed to discourage the use of intoxicants;
(e) A notice to
the defendant that the diversion agreement will be considered to be violated if
the court receives notice that the defendant at any time during the diversion
period committed the offense of driving while under the influence of
intoxicants or committed a violation of ORS 811.170;
(f) An agreement
by the defendant to keep the court advised of the defendant’s current mailing
address at all times during the diversion period;
(g) A waiver by
the defendant of any former jeopardy rights under the federal and state
Constitutions and ORS 131.505 to 131.525 in any subsequent action upon the
charge or any other offenses based upon the same criminal episode;
(h) A sworn
statement, as defined in ORS 162.055, by the defendant certifying that the
defendant meets the criteria set out in ORS 813.215 to be eligible to enter
into the driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement;
(i) An agreement
by the defendant to pay court-appointed attorney fees as determined by the
court; and
(j) An agreement
by the defendant to pay restitution if ordered by the court under ORS 137.108.
(5) A person may
use intoxicants during the diversion period if:
(a) The person
consumes sacramental wine given or provided as part of a religious rite or
service;
(b) The person
has a valid prescription for a substance and the person takes the substance as
directed; or
(c) The person is
using a nonprescription drug, as defined in ORS 689.005, in accordance with the
directions for use that are printed on the label for that nonprescription drug.
[1983 c.338 §369; 1985 c.16 §191; 1987 c.441 §4; 2003 c.816 §1; 2011 c.468 §3;
2013 c.78 §4; 2015 c.318 §50; 2017 c.655 §9]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
46
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 813.200 - 813.270 (governing the diversion program for per- sons charged with DUII).”
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “ORS 813.200(1). The defendant must submit a “sworn statement” to the court “certifying” her eligibility.”
State v. Merrill, 492 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“Defendant pleaded no contest to the charge and entered diversion, as allowed by ORS 813.200 to 813.270. Upon finding that defendant did not satisfy the terms of her diversion agreement, the trial court terminated diversion and entered the judgment of conviction in accordance…”
State v. Boots, 848 P.2d 76 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 2× “[16] The Oregon Revised Statutes in ORS Chapter 135 and in ORS 813.200 use the phrase "former jeopardy" in lieu of "double jeopardy," and the Legislative Council Committee has adopted that phrase for section and chapter titles in ORS Chapter 131 and elsewhere.”
Dyrdahl v. Dep't of Transp., 131 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “ORS 813.200. If the driver does so, the driver must plead guilty or no contest to the charge, but the circuit court must stay the proceedings and withhold judgment.”
State v. Redick, 491 P.3d 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“1 Defendant pleaded guilty to DUII and entered diversion, as described by ORS 813.200 to 813.270. He later admitted violating the terms of the diversion agree- ment, and the trial court terminated diversion and entered an amended judgment of conviction in accordance with ORS 813.”
State v. Flores, 505 P.3d 507 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “We understand the trial court’s state- ment that “the legislative intent with the diversion package” is that “intoxicants are intoxicants” to mean that, because the diversion statutes that govern the conditions of diversion require a defendant to agree to “not use intoxicants,”…”
State v. Orueta, 164 P.3d 267 (Or. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 813.200 to 813.270 (describing diversion).”
State v. Donathan, 383 P.3d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Under those statutes, a defendant must plead guilty or no contest as part of the diversion process, see ORS 813.200(4)(a), yet the plea does not lead to a predicate conviction for purposes of ORS 813.”
State v. Romanov, 149 P.3d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “We begin with the diversion proceeding. Under a diversion agreement, a defendant pleads guilty and participates in court-ordered treatment in exchange for the court suspending entry of a judgment of conviction.”
State v. Young, 103 P.3d 1180 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“, ORS 813.200(4)(d) (requiring petition for diversion to include defendant’s agreement “to not use intoxicants in conjunction with the * * * operation of a motor vehicle”); ORS 813.”
State v. Lagrassa, 230 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “ORS 813.200(4). If the petition is allowed, the plea is accepted by the court but entry of a judgment of conviction is withheld pending completion of the agreement to comply with the terms of the diversion petition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(1) — 1 case
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“ORS 813.200(1). The defendant must submit a “sworn statement” to the court “certifying” her eligibility.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4) — 4 cases
State v. Lagrassa, 230 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“ORS 813.200(4). If the petition is allowed, the plea is accepted by the court but entry of a judgment of conviction is withheld pending completion of the agreement to comply with the terms of the diversion petition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(a) — 5 cases
State v. Donathan, 383 P.3d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“Under those statutes, a defendant must plead guilty or no contest as part of the diversion process, see ORS 813.200(4)(a), yet the plea does not lead to a predicate conviction for purposes of ORS 813.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(c) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(d) — 3 cases
State v. Young, 103 P.3d 1180 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).
“, ORS 813.200(4)(d) (requiring petition for diversion to include defendant’s agreement “to not use intoxicants in conjunction with the * * * operation of a motor vehicle”); ORS 813.”
State v. Flores, 505 P.3d 507 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“We understand the trial court’s state- ment that “the legislative intent with the diversion package” is that “intoxicants are intoxicants” to mean that, because the diversion statutes that govern the conditions of diversion require a defendant to agree to “not use intoxicants,”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(e) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(h) — 1 case
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“ORS 813.200(1). The defendant must submit a “sworn statement” to the court “certifying” her eligibility.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.200(4)(i) — 3 cases
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.