State v. Long-Ellis

Under ORS 137.225(1)(a), the term, “fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court” means fully satisfying the terms of parole and not just avoiding subsequent parole violations.

Defendant was convicted of harassment and sentenced to probation in 2015. A condition of his probation was to complete sex offender treatment but he never did. The state never initiated probation violation proceedings, and the defendant moved to set aside the conviction a year after his probation expired. The defendant argued that “fully complied with and performed the sentence of the court” under ORS 137.225(1)(a) means that he completed his probation period without any violations despite having not completed the treatment. The trial court denied his motion to set aside so he appealed. On appeal, The Court of Appeals affirmed finding that the trial court did not err by applying hearing procedures in ORS 137.225(3)(a) and if it did err then that error was invited by the defendant. The court reasoned that the legislature updated ORS 137.225(1) in 2021 and now expressly addresses the situation where a parolee does not meet all the conditions of his parole as not meeting the “fully complied” standard. Despite the subsequent hearing being a mistake, the court reasoned that the defendant invited that mistake under the authority of State v. Singleton, 317 Or App 49, 503 P3d 499 (2022), and it was not grounds to reverse the finding. Therefore, AFFIRMED.