State v. Logston

Where there is no other limiting authority, a court is permitted under the Oregon Constitution to impose consecutive sentences when the crimes involve different victims, even across separate cases and after a probation revocation.

The defendant pled guilty to unlawful use of a vehicle and attempted possession of heroin in Lake County, and received 24 months of probation instead of prison while agreeing that should his probation be revoked, he would receive an 18-month prison sentence. While the defendant was on probation, he was involved in a vehicular accident in Jefferson County resulting in multiple charges and a sentence of 75 consecutive months in prison. The Lake County court then revoked the defendant’s probation which triggered an 18 month prison sentence that the Court ordered to be served consecutively with the 75 month sentence imposed by Jefferson County. The defendant challenged the Lake County court’s ability to impose a prison sentence consecutive to a sentence from a separate case that involves separate victims. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the Lake county court’s decision to make the sentences run consecutively. 
The defendant argues that the trial court lacked the authority and the sentencing guidelines do not authorize the court to impose consecutive sentences in this scenario. The Oregon Supreme Court disagreed with the defendant and found that under a previous ruling in State v. Lane, 357 Or 619, 355 P3d 914 (2015), the Oregon Constitution (Article 1, §44(1)(b)), which prevents any law from limiting consecutive sentences where there are different victims, is applicable to probation revocation sentences and any conflicting sentencing guideline is superseded by the Oregon Constitution. Therefore, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that the trial court did have the authority to impose a consecutive sentence after the defendant’s probation revocation and affirmed the lower court’s decision.