State v. Kragt

“[A] trial court must impose a [post-prison supervision] term for each violation of the statutes listed in ORS 144.103(1).”

Defendant appealed a sentence for three counts of first-degree sodomy that included separate terms of post-prison supervision (PPS). Defendant argued “ORS 144.103(1) requires a single term of PPS, regardless of the number of counts.” In response, the State argued the statute requires a PPS term for each violation. The Court of Appeals agreed with the state. “[A] trial court must impose a [post-prison supervision] term for each violation of the statutes listed in ORS 144.103(1).” The Court found that the plain text of ORS 144.103(1) “contemplate[s] that the sentence for each ‘violation’ will include a PPS term.” The Court also found that “the legislature likely would have understood * * * that multiple terms of PPS could be imposed * * * in a single case[,] * * * support[ing] the natural reading of the text[.]” The Court further found that, although the legislative history of ORS 144.103(1) was unhelpful, application of the “absurd results cannon” of statutory construction would not be appropriate in this case. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Kragt, 304 Or App 537, 467 P3d 830 (2020).