State v. LaCoe

A court’s authority to revoke probation based on a violation must be filed before the end of the probationary period even if the violation occurred while the probationbwas effective. A sentencing court’s authority to extend probation after its conclusion must be through a deliberate judicial act. State v. Miller, 244 Or App 642

Defendant was convicted in two felony cases and sentenced to probation through August 2019.  Subsequently, Defendant was apprehended on an arrest warrant in November 2019, that was issued based on the State’s allegations that Defendant violated probation by failing to report to the supervising officer.  In December 2019, the State filed a supplemental affidavit alleging Defendant once more violated probation by failing to obey all laws.  Defendant moved to dismiss the supplemental claims; however, the trial court concluded the arrest warrant had extended the probationary period and revoked probation. Defendant assigned error to denial of his motion to dismiss.  On appeal, Defendant argued the probationary period could not be “automatically tolled” because the probationary period concluded, and the court failed to extend through a judicial act.  The State argued the probationary period was “effectively tolled” by operation of law through issuance of an arrest warrant.  A court’s authority to revoke probation based on a violation must be filed before the end of the probationary period even if the violation occurred while the probation was effective.  A sentencing court’s authority to extend probation after its conclusion must be through a deliberate judicial act.  State v. Miller, 244 Or App 642.  The Court reasoned that because the trial court did not deliberately extend Defendant’s probation through a judicial act, they lacked authority to revoke probation.  Vacated and remanded for resentencing.