2015 ORS 137.080¹
Consideration of circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of punishment

(1) After a plea or verdict of guilty, or after a verdict against the defendant on a plea of former conviction or acquittal, in a case where discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment to be inflicted, the court, upon the suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly considered in aggravation or mitigation of the punishment, may, in its discretion, hear the same summarily at a specified time and upon such notice to the adverse party as it may direct.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances as to felonies committed on or after November 1, 1989, including the maximum sentence that may be imposed because of aggravating circumstances, shall be in accordance with rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [Amended by 1989 c.790 §9]

Notes of Decisions

Unsworn state­ments may be received by the trial court in considering sen­tence. State v. McKinney, 7 Or App 248, 489 P2d 976 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Hearsay is admissible in the sen­ten­cing pro­ce­dure at least in so far as it may be included in a presen­tence report. State v. McKinney, 7 Or App 248, 489 P2d 976 (1971), Sup Ct review denied

Sentencing court may consider aggravating factors and impose departure without sugges­tion of either party. State v. Swisher, 116 Or App 129, 840 P2d 1339 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

In imposing departure sen­tence, court could consider that defendant committed of­fense while on release from earlier of­fense, defendants failure to appear for trial, and defendants com­mis­sion of similar unrelated of­fenses sen­tenced at same court session, but could not consider crim­i­nal history or seriousness of crime. State v. Nelson, 119 Or App 84, 849 P2d 1147 (1993)

Where crime seriousness subcategory factor refers to offender rather than of­fense, factor applies only if defendant per­sonally engaged in de­scribed con­duct. State v. Lark, 316 Or 317, 851 P2d 1114 (1993); State v. Flanigan, 316 Or 329, 851 P2d 1120 (1993)

Where crime seriousness subcategory factor refers to of­fense rather than to offender, factor may be applied vicariously to accomplice who did not per­sonally engage in factor con­duct. State v. Lark, 316 Or 317, 851 P2d 1114 (1993); State v. Flanigan, 316 Or 329, 851 P2d 1120 (1993)

Completed Cita­tions

State v. Smith, 6 Or App 27, 487 P2d 90 (1971), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 137—Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 137, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano137.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
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.