State v. Lucas

Under ORS 137.545(1)(a), trial courts possess discretionary authority to extend probation, but reversal is appropriate where the record establishes that a court had “extended defendant’s probation as a means of avoiding a hearing,” rather than having done so based on assessment of public safety or rehabilitation considerations. See State v. Baker, 235 Or App 321, 325, 230 P3d 969 (2010).

Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months of bench probation. Four months later, the trial court changed the probationary period to 48 months because of two probation violations alleged on a show-cause order. Petitioner’s counsel investigated the allegations, and finding them to be untrue, discussed dismissal of the charges with the prosecutor, who agreed to the dismissal. The prosecutor then failed to appear in court, and the court indicated that it was going to dismiss the show-cause order because it had already amended the sentencing judgment to reflect the court’s concern regarding Petitioner’s alleged probation violations.

Petitioner appealed the amended sentencing judgment, contending that it was improper to extend her sentence without “notice or process,” and thereby deprived her of the “opportunity to contest the probation violations or abusing its discretion under ORS 137.545(1)(a).”

Because the trial court’s reasoning for the change was not present in the record, the court held that the proper disposition under Baker was reversal. See Baker, 235 Or App at 326

Reversed and remanded.