State v. Hamilton

When an issue is not preserved at trial, review of that issue is limited to plain-error review where the error is considered “plain” if the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without the court having to choose among competing inferences. See ORAP 5.45(1); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013). A trial court has “discretionary authority to revoke probation” based on the “finding of a new crime or other violation of the conditions of probation.” State v. Kelemen, 296 Or App 184 (2019).

Defendant appealed, assigning error to the trial court’s decision to revoke her probation. Defendant argued that the trial court lacked authority to revoke her probation because drug-court program rules are not probation conditions. When an issue is not preserved at trial, review of that issue is limited to plain-error review where the error is considered “plain” if the legal point is obvious, not reasonably in dispute, and the error is apparent on the record without the court having to choose among competing inferences. See ORAP 5.45(1); State v. Vanornum, 354 Or 614, 629 (2013). The Court found that Defendant did not preserve her lack of authority argument on appeal, so this argument was limited to plain-error review. The Court reasoned that, because Defendant had ample opportunity to argue against probation revocation, it was not “obvious” that Defendant was deprived of due process. 

Defendant alternatively argued that the trial court abused its discretion in the revocation of her probation. A trial court has “discretionary authority to revoke probation” based on the “finding of a new crime or other violation of the conditions of probation.” State v. Kelemen, 296 Or App 184 (2019). The Court found that continuing Defendant’s probation was not the only legally permissible outcome. The Court explained it was reasonable to infer that the trial court considered completion of the drug-court program as a critical condition of Defendant’s probation; therefore, the termination of probation was within the range of legally permissible outcomes and not an abuse of discretion.