2017 ORS 137.120¹
Term of sentence
  • reasons to be stated on record

(1) Whenever any person is convicted of a felony committed prior to November 1, 1989, the court shall, unless it imposes other than a sentence to serve a term of imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections, sentence such person to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of time, but stating and fixing in the judgment and sentence a maximum term for the crime, which shall not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law therefor; and judgment shall be given accordingly. Such a sentence shall be known as an indeterminate sentence. The court shall state on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed.

(2) Whenever any person is convicted of a felony committed on or after November 1, 1989, the court shall impose sentence in accordance with rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.

(3) This section does not affect the indictment, prosecution, trial, verdict, judgment or punishment of any felony committed before June 14, 1939, and all laws now and before that date in effect relating to such a felony are continued in full force and effect as to such a felony. [Amended by 1967 c.372 §2; 1971 c.743 §324; 1977 c.372 §12; 1987 c.320 §29; 1989 c.790 §11]

Notes of Decisions

Offenses Before November 1, 1989

There is no require­ment that trial court support sen­tence imposed by ex­plic­it reference to presen­tence report. State v. Rogers, 34 Or App 523, 579 P2d 258 (1978)

Require­ments of this sec­tion and [former] ORS 144.790 are mandatory, not discre­tionary, and trial court was re­quired to obtain and consider presen­tence report and to state on record reasons for its decision, notwithstanding defendants waiver of presen­tence report. State v. Biles, 34 Or App 531, 579 P2d 259 (1978), aff’d 287 Or 63, 597 P2d 808 (1979)

Reference to presen­tence report in­for­ma­­tion and recommenda­tion without express state­ment of court’s reason for following recommenda­tion was insufficient. State v. Smith, 34 Or App 539, 579 P2d 261 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Trial court’s failure to state reasons for sen­tence re­quired remand for imposi­tion of new sen­tence with state­ment of reasons where sen­tence was based on plea bargain and there was no objec­tion below. State v. Franklin, 36 Or App 413, 584 P2d 368 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Although sen­ten­cing judge did not ex­plic­itly recount facts contained in presen­tence report, com­ments at time of sen­ten­cing made reasons for sen­tence sufficiently clear when viewed in light of other reported evidence presented at sen­ten­cing pro­ceed­ing. State v. John, 37 Or App 439, 587 P2d 502 (1978)

Where defendant contended that sen­tence was invalid because court failed to state reasons pursuant to this sec­tion, confession of error by state was not binding on appellate court as trial judge reviewed extensive number of burglaries committed by defendant and prior con­vic­­tions for robbery. State v. Shipley, 39 Or App 283, 592 P2d 237 (1979)

Trial court’s stated reason for sen­ten­cing defendant, “I am punishing you,” was insufficient under this sec­tion. State v. Grass, 41 Or App 575, 599 P2d 1203 (1979)

Where trial court had reduced defendant’s con­vic­­tion of sec­ond de­gree escape to Class A misdemeanor, suspended sen­tence and placed defendant on proba­tion, court’s failure to comply with this sec­tion by failing to state reason for sen­tence upon proba­tion revoca­tion was not error because this sec­tion does not apply to misdemeanors. State v. Larsen, 44 Or App 769, 607 P2d 212 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where court at close of sen­ten­cing hearing gave no reason for sen­tence, but merely summarized charges dismissed, stated remaining reduced charge and max­i­mum sen­tence and then pronounced sen­tence, and where judg­ment order, signed by court four days after pronouncing sen­tence, contained written findings of fact and stated reasons for sen­tence imposed, court failed to comply with this sec­tion and resen­ten­cing was re­quired. State v. Evans, 45 Or App 449, 608 P2d 602 (1980)

Defendant’s failure to raise issue at trial does not waive defect caused by court’s failure to state reasons for sen­tence. State v. Franklin, 62 Or App 660, 661 P2d 946 (1983)

Offenses On or After November 1, 1989

Sentencing guide­line rule that subjected convicted defendant to greater presumptive sen­tence upon finding that defendant’s crim­i­nal ac­tivity occurred as part of “drug cultiva­tion, manufacture or delivery scheme or network” was unconstitu­tionally vague under Article I, sec­tions 20 and 21 of Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Moeller, 105 Or App 434, 806 P2d 130 (1991); State v. Mack, 108 Or App 643, 817 P2d 1321 (1991); State v. Rubio-Landa, 110 Or App 134, 820 P2d 467 (1991)

Where separate crim­i­nal acts arise within one general crim­i­nal transac­tion, con­vic­­tion for first occurring act cannot enhance crim­i­nal history score in determining sen­tence for later occurring act. State v. Plourd, 125 Or App 238, 864 P2d 1367 (1993)

For purposes of determining crim­i­nal history, con­vic­­tion occurs when sen­tence is pronounced in open court. State v. Plourd, 125 Or App 238, 864 P2d 1367 (1993)

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 433 (1972)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 137—Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors137.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 137, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano137.­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.