State v. Rusen

OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) states that “[i]f more than one term of probationary supervision is revoked for a single supervision violation, the sentencing judge shall impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently.”

Defendant pleaded no contest to sexual abuse and was sentenced to probation. Following a violation of his probation, Defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration. On appeal, Defendant argued that OAR 213-012-0040(2) does not permit the revocation of multiple terms of probation due to a single violation. The State responded by stating that the statute precludes the Defendant because his sentence was the product of a “stipulated sentencing agreement.” The Court found that the parties argued for different sentences, however, this does not constitute a “stipulated sentencing agreement.” Additionally, the Court agreed with Defendant’s argument on the trial court’s imposition of consecutive terms of incarceration. OAR 213-012-0040(2)(a) states that, “[i]f more than one term of probationary supervision is revoked for a single supervision violation, the sentencing judge shall impose the incarceration sanctions concurrently.” Here, the Court stated, the trial court erred because it relied on its understanding that Defendant had agreed that he would be eligible for consecutive terms of incarceration upon revocation. However, the trial court was barred from imposing these terms. Reversed and remanded.