State v. Gaona-Mandujano

ORS 137.540(2) gives the trial court discretion to impose any special conditions of probation “that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.”

Defendant was subject to supervised probation with special probation conditions which restricted his use of alcohol and participation in “intimate” relationships. On appeal, Defendant argued that conditions that limit his use of alcohol were “not reasonably related to his offenses, because the record did not indicate problematic alcohol use.” Furthermore, Defendant contended that, the condition restricting his participation in relationships “impermissibly restrict[ed] his fundamental right of association and [did] not further his reformation or promote public safety and [did] not sufficiently alert him as to which relationships are subject to the condition.” ORS 137.540(2) gives the trial court discretion to impose any special conditions of probation “that are reasonably related to the crime of conviction or the needs of the probationer for the protection of the public or reformation of the probationer, or both.” The Court agreed with Defendant on both counts. The Court found that the record did not demonstrate that Defendant’s convictions were connected to his use of alcohol and, therefore, “the conditions would not serve to rehabilitate him or protect the public. The Court also stated that the trial court erred when it imposed the condition to restrict his participation in “intimate” relationships because “without additional wording, Defendant would not know from the word ‘intimate’ to which relationships the condition may apply.” Reversed and remanded.