2017 ORS 135.767¹
Presence of prisoner at proceedings

(1) Whenever the presence of an inmate in the custody of the Department of Corrections or of the supervisory authority of a county pursuant to a commitment under ORS 137.124 (Commitment of defendant to Department of Corrections or county) (2) is necessary in any criminal proceeding under ORS 135.760 (Notice requesting early trial on pending charge) to 135.773 (District attorney to furnish certain documents), the court wherein the inmate is charged with the commission of a crime may:

(a) Issue an order directing the Director of the Department of Corrections or the supervisory authority of a county to surrender the inmate to the sheriff of the county where the inmate is to be tried; or

(b) Ensure that arrangements for the inmate to appear by simultaneous electronic transmission as described in ORS 131.045 (Appearances by simultaneous electronic transmission) have been made.

(2) The county where an inmate is charged with commission of a crime shall pay the costs of:

(a) Transportation and maintenance of the inmate removed under this section; or

(b) Providing for the inmate to appear by simultaneous electronic transmission.

(3) If an inmate is transported under this section for a criminal proceeding under ORS 135.760 (Notice requesting early trial on pending charge) to 135.773 (District attorney to furnish certain documents), at the conclusion of the proceeding, notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 137.167 (Imprisonment when county jail is not suitable for safe confinement), the inmate shall be returned by the sheriff to the custody of the Department of Corrections or the supervisory authority of the county in which the inmate is imprisoned.

(4) The time during which an inmate is in the custody of the sheriff under this section is part of and shall be counted as time served under the original sentence. [Formerly 134.540; 1983 c.740 §14; 1987 c.320 §20; 1995 c.423 §9c; 2005 c.566 §8]

Notes of Decisions

Where defendant, who requested speedy trial, made written mo­tion for psychiatric examina­tion and a continuance, state had already set trial within 90-day limit, and examina­tion was delayed because of state hospital backlog which resulted in delay of trial beyond 90-day limit, circumstances were not sufficient to require dismissal of charges. State v. Fannin, 48 Or App 795, 617 P2d 953 (1980)

Where accusatory instru­ment did not exist at time defendant claims to have given written notice requesting speedy trial, notice cannot trigger statutory rights. State v. Easton, 103 Or App 184, 797 P2d 373 (1990)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 135—Arraignment and Pretrial Provisions, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 135, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano135.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.