State v. Adams

The Court ruled it would “…not presume an implicit finding where the record does not support it or shows that such a finding was not part of the trial court’s chain of reasoning forming the basis of its ultimate legal conclusion.” See Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 671, 342 P3d 70 (2015).

Defendant appealed the revocation of his probation based on a finding that he violated a special condition requiring him to go to family court, follow direction from the supervising officer, and follow all laws. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court’s finding that he failed to finish family court was an error because his children moved to a different state with their mother. In response, the State argued Defendant was in violation of his probation because he failed to follow the expectations of family court and the court should presume this was a finding by the trial court based on its finding of the Defendant in violation. The Court ruled it would “…not presume an implicit finding where the record does not support it or shows that such a finding was not part of the trial court’s chain of reasoning forming the basis of its ultimate legal conclusion.” See Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 671, 342 P3d 70 (2015). Thus, the trial court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation based on his failure to participate in family court was an error. Reversed and remanded.