2017 ORS 137.671¹
Authority of court to impose sentence outside guidelines

(1) The court may impose a sentence outside the presumptive sentence or sentence range made presumptive under ORS 137.669 (Guidelines control sentences) for a specific offense if it finds there are substantial and compelling reasons justifying a deviation from the presumptive sentence.

(2) Whenever the court imposes a sentence outside the presumptive sentence it shall set forth the reasons for its decision in the manner required by rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. [1987 c.619 §6; 1989 c.790 §39; 1995 c.420 §8]

Note: See note under 137.651 (Definitions for ORS 137.654, 137.656 and 137.658).

Notes of Decisions

Where court clearly stated it was not imposing sen­tence departure because of defendant’s status as illegal alien but because of his absolute disregard for any laws, and imposi­tion of presumptive proba­tionary sen­tence would not have accomplished goals of guide­lines, departure sen­tence was proper. State v. Morales-Aguilar, 121 Or App 456, 855 P2d 646 (1993)

Upward departure sen­tences that require judicial findings of fact and are not based on facts found by jury violate Sixth Amend­ment to United States Constitu­tion. State v. Sawatzky, 195 Or App 159, 96 P3d 1288 (2004)

Facts es­tab­lishing substantial and compelling reasons for exceeding presumptive sen­tence under sen­ten­cing guide­lines, other than fact of prior con­vic­­tion, must be determined by jury or admitted by defendant. State v. Dilts, 337 Or 645, 103 P3d 95 (2004)

Trial court is authorized to have jury determine whether state has proven existence of sen­tence enhancing factors, but trial court determines whether proven sen­tence enhancing factors justify imposi­tion of departure sen­tence. State v. Upton, 339 Or 673, 125 P3d 713 (2005)

Defendant may elect to have judge, rather than jury, determine existence of aggravating facts for purposes of sen­tence enhance­ment. State v. Gornick, 340 Or 160, 130 P3d 780 (2006)

Notes of Decisions

Sentencing Guide­lines do not violate Article I, sec­tion 15, Article I, sec­tion 16 or Article III, sec­tion 1 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. State v. Spinney, 109 Or App 573, 820 P2d 854 (1991)

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.