813.250 Motion
to dismiss charge on completion of diversion; admissibility of statements. (1) At any time after the
conclusion of the period of a driving while under the influence of intoxicants
diversion agreement described in ORS 813.230, a defendant who has fully
complied with and performed the conditions of the diversion agreement may apply
by motion to the court wherein the diversion agreement was entered for an order
dismissing the charge with prejudice.
(2) The defendant
shall cause to be served on the district attorney or city attorney a copy of
the motion for entry of an order dismissing with prejudice the charge of
driving while under the influence of intoxicants. The motion shall be served on
the district attorney or city attorney at the time it is filed with the court.
The district attorney or city attorney may contest the motion.
(3) If the
defendant does not appear as provided by subsection (1) of this section within
six months after the conclusion of the diversion period, and if the court finds
that the defendant fully complied with and performed the conditions of the
diversion agreement, and if it gives notice of that finding to the district
attorney or city attorney the court may on its own motion enter an order
dismissing the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicants with
prejudice.
(4) No statement
made by the defendant about the offense with which the defendant is charged
shall be offered or received in evidence in any criminal or civil action or
proceeding arising out of the same conduct which is the basis of the charge of
driving while under the influence of intoxicants, if the statement was made
during the course of the screening interview or treatment program and to a
person employed by the program. [1983 c.338 §374; 1985 c.16 §195; 1987 c.441 §7;
2015 c.318 §53]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case:
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
· cites it 2× “However, if a defendant has fully complied with and performed the conditions of the diversion agreement, the 1 There is an exception that is inapplicable in this case.”
State v. Rowland, 228 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “See ORS 813.250 (providing that, at the conclusion of the diversion agreement, a defendant who has “fully complied with and performed the conditions of’ the agreement may seek an order dismissing the charge with prejudice); ORS 813.”
State v. Maul, 132 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “ORS 813.250. ORS 813.230(3) provides that a diversion agreement “shall be for a period of one year after the date the court allows the petition.”
State v. Wright, 131 P.3d 838 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“The diversion agreement provides that the defendant shall plead guilty and participate in a court-ordered treatment program in exchange for the court suspending entry of a judgment of conviction.”
State v. Donathan, 383 P.3d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See ORS 813.250. 4 According to defendant, that understanding is confirmed by legislative history from the DUII statutes in which Oregon State Police Sergeant Hoffman testified that successful completion of diversion was not intended to result in a determination that would…”
State v. Gaino, 149 P.3d 1229 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“If the court extends the diversion period under this subsection, the following apply: “(a) If the defendant fully complies with the conditions of the diversion agreement within the extended diversion period, the court may dismiss the charge with prejudice under ORS 813.250. “(b)…”
Dyrdahl v. Dep't of Transp., 131 P.3d 770 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“ORS 813.250. If the driver does not complete the diversion program successfully, the circuit court must enter the driver’s plea, and the driver will have been convicted of DUII.”
State v. Landahl, 292 P.3d 646 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“The diversion and plea agreement provided that defendant understood that, if he fully complied with the conditions of the diversion agreement, the court would dismiss the charge with prejudice pursuant to ORS 813.250, but that, if defendant failed to comply with the agreement…”
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “ORS 813.250 describes the means by which charges may be dismissed once diversion has been successfully completed.”
State v. Romanov, 149 P.3d 1224 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“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. Ellis, 199 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “Contrary to defendant’s view, the legislature has not referred to the group of specially prescribed conditions that a defendant must fulfill in order to perform his or her obligations under a diversion agreement as the diversion program.”
State v. Vest, 744 P.2d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 6× “2 Through the attorney, defendant then moved that *104 the court reconsider termination, because she had not received an evidentiary hearing, ORS 813.250, and renewed her request for court-appointed counsel.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.250(1) — 11 cases
State v. Colgrove, 521 P.3d 456 (Or. 2022).
“However, if a defendant has fully complied with and performed the conditions of the diversion agreement, the 1 There is an exception that is inapplicable in this case.”
State v. Maul, 132 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
“ORS 813.250. ORS 813.230(3) provides that a diversion agreement “shall be for a period of one year after the date the court allows the petition.”
State v. Rowland, 228 P.3d 670 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“See ORS 813.250 (providing that, at the conclusion of the diversion agreement, a defendant who has “fully complied with and performed the conditions of’ the agreement may seek an order dismissing the charge with prejudice); ORS 813.”
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“ORS 813.250 describes the means by which charges may be dismissed once diversion has been successfully completed.”
State v. Ellis, 199 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Contrary to defendant’s view, the legislature has not referred to the group of specially prescribed conditions that a defendant must fulfill in order to perform his or her obligations under a diversion agreement as the diversion program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.250(3) — 4 cases
State v. Reed, 249 P.3d 557 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“ORS 813.250 describes the means by which charges may be dismissed once diversion has been successfully completed.”
State v. Vest, 744 P.2d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“2 Through the attorney, defendant then moved that *104 the court reconsider termination, because she had not received an evidentiary hearing, ORS 813.250, and renewed her request for court-appointed counsel.”
State v. Ellis, 199 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Contrary to defendant’s view, the legislature has not referred to the group of specially prescribed conditions that a defendant must fulfill in order to perform his or her obligations under a diversion agreement as the diversion program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.250(4) — 1 case
State v. Ellis, 199 P.3d 359 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“Contrary to defendant’s view, the legislature has not referred to the group of specially prescribed conditions that a defendant must fulfill in order to perform his or her obligations under a diversion agreement as the diversion program.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.250(c) — 1 case
State v. Vest, 744 P.2d 288 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“2 Through the attorney, defendant then moved that *104 the court reconsider termination, because she had not received an evidentiary hearing, ORS 813.250, and renewed her request for court-appointed counsel.”
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.