Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210 (2026)

Petition; filing fee; screening interview fee; service on prosecutor; objection

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      813.210 Petition; filing fee; screening interview fee; service on prosecutor; objection. (1) After an accusatory instrument has been filed charging the defendant with the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants, a defendant may file with the court a petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement described in ORS 813.200. The petition:

      (a) Must be filed within 30 days after the date of the defendant’s first appearance on the summons, unless a later filing date is allowed by the court upon a showing of good cause. For purposes of this paragraph, the filing of a demurrer, a motion to suppress or a motion for an omnibus hearing does not constitute good cause.

      (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, may not be filed after entry of a guilty plea or a no contest plea or after commencement of any trial on the charge whether or not a new trial or retrial is ordered for any reason.

      (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, may be filed up to 14 days after the date the prosecuting attorney sends the laboratory test results of the defendant’s urine or blood sample analysis to the defendant’s attorney or, if the defendant is unrepresented, the defendant, if:

      (A) The accusatory instrument alleges that the defendant was driving under the influence of intoxicants and alleges that at the time the conduct occurred the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance or an inhalant;

      (B) The defendant has not received notice of what the defendant’s blood alcohol content was at the time the conduct occurred or if at the time the conduct occurred the defendant had less than 0.08 percent by weight of alcohol in the blood; and

      (C) A police officer obtained a urine or blood sample from the defendant.

      (2) The defendant shall pay to the court, at the time of filing a petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement, a filing fee established under ORS 813.240. The court may make provision for payment of the filing fee by the defendant on an installment basis. The court may waive all or part of the filing fee in cases involving indigent defendants. The filing fee paid to the court under this subsection shall be retained by the court if the petition is allowed. The filing fee shall be distributed as provided by ORS 813.240.

      (3) The defendant shall pay to the agency or organization providing the screening interview, at the time the petition is allowed, the fee required by ORS 813.240 (3).

      (4)(a) Unless otherwise provided under paragraph (b) of this subsection, the defendant shall pay to the court any court-appointed attorney fees agreed to under ORS 813.200 (4)(i). Payments shall be made prior to the end of the diversion period on a schedule determined by the court.

      (b) The court may waive all or part of the court-appointed attorney fees agreed to under ORS 813.200 (4)(i).

      (5) The defendant shall begin paying to the court any restitution ordered under ORS 137.108. Payments shall be made during the diversion period on a schedule determined by the court.

      (6) The defendant shall cause a copy of the petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement to be served upon the district attorney or city attorney. The district attorney or city attorney may file with the court, within 15 days after the date of service, a written objection to the petition and a request for a hearing. [1983 c.338 §370; 1985 c.16 §192; 1987 c.441 §5; 1987 c.534 §1; 1993 c.13 §6; 2003 c.816 §2; 2011 c.595 §170; 2013 c.78 §5; 2015 c.318 §51; 2017 c.491 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: State v. Orueta, 164 P.3d 267 (Or. 2007).
State v. Orueta, 164 P.3d 267 (Or. 2007). · cites it 4× “ORS 813.210; ORS 813.220. A judge is required to exercise discretion in granting or withholding diversion and can adduce the necessary facts in that proceeding.”
State v. Burton, 337 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 13× “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consider- ation of several factors.”
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 10× “ORS 813.210 contains several provisions regarding payments associated with diversion: “(2) The defendant shall pay to the court, at the time of filing a petition for a driving under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement, a filing fee established under ORS 813.”
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Upon successfully completing the program, the defendant may have the DUII charge dismissed.”
State v. Burton, 562 P.3d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 13× “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consid- eration of several factors.”
State v. Maul, 132 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “ORS 813.210. When the court allows a petition for a diversion agreement, the court is required to take a plea of guilty or no contest, but it withholds entry of judgment on the conviction.”
State v. Manfredonia, 805 P.2d 738 (Or. Ct. App. 1991). “ORS 813.210. We vacate the judgment and remand for reconsideration of the petition.”
State v. Rowland, 228 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “See ORS 813.210 (allowing a DUII defendant to petition for a DUII diversion agreement).”
State v. Lagrassa, 230 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 813.210(1). A diversion petition includes, among other things, a plea of guilty or no contest to the DUII charge and an agreement by the defendant to complete a diagnostic and treatment program for drug or alcohol abuse.”
Koch v. State, 288 P.3d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “ORS 813.210. The state opposed diversion, contending, among other things, that petitioner was not eligible for diversion under ORS 813.”
State v. Sisneros, 734 P.2d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “450(4) (a) (now ORS 813.210(4)(a)) precluded a trial court from allowing diversion if the defendant had been convicted of DUII within the preceding ten years.”
State v. Soto, 343 P.3d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “200; ORS 813.210; ORS 813.230. Because defendant could not afford to pay for the treatment required in diversion, the trial court eventually terminated the diversion agreement and entered the plea of no contest.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(1) — 10 cases
State v. Lagrassa, 230 P.3d 96 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 813.210(1). A diversion petition includes, among other things, a plea of guilty or no contest to the DUII charge and an agreement by the defendant to complete a diagnostic and treatment program for drug or alcohol abuse.”
State v. Burton, 337 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consider- ation of several factors.”
State v. Burton, 562 P.3d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consid- eration of several factors.”
State v. Peck, 538 P.3d 1223 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Lindholm, 346 Or. App. 386 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Burton, 337 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consider- ation of several factors.”
State v. Burton, 562 P.3d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consid- eration of several factors.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(1)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Burton, 337 Or. App. 336 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consider- ation of several factors.”
State v. Burton, 562 P.3d 1135 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “Next, if the defendant satisfies the requirements of ORS 813.210, the trial court “shall determine whether to allow or deny a petition” for DUII diversion after consid- eration of several factors.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(2) — 4 cases
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 813.210 contains several provisions regarding payments associated with diversion: “(2) The defendant shall pay to the court, at the time of filing a petition for a driving under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement, a filing fee established under ORS 813.”
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Wilson, 270 P.3d 411 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Zook, 476 P.3d 508 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(4) — 7 cases
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “ORS 813.210 contains several provisions regarding payments associated with diversion: “(2) The defendant shall pay to the court, at the time of filing a petition for a driving under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement, a filing fee established under ORS 813.”
State v. Maynard, 738 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Thomas, 737 P.2d 143 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Underwood, 756 P.2d 72 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Zook, 476 P.3d 508 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(4)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Sisneros, 734 P.2d 355 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “450(4) (a) (now ORS 813.210(4)(a)) precluded a trial court from allowing diversion if the defendant had been convicted of DUII within the preceding ten years.”
State v. Conklin, 743 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Olson, 754 P.2d 630 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(4)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Orueta, 164 P.3d 267 (Or. 2007). “ORS 813.210; ORS 813.220. A judge is required to exercise discretion in granting or withholding diversion and can adduce the necessary facts in that proceeding.”
State v. Maynard, 738 P.2d 210 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
State v. Vest, 744 P.2d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.210(5) — 1 case
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Upon successfully completing the program, the defendant may have the DUII charge dismissed.”
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.