2017 ORS 144.791¹
Presentence report in felony conviction cases
  • when required

(1) When a person is convicted of a felony, including a felony sexual offense, the sentencing court may order a presentence report upon its own motion or upon the request of the district attorney or the defendant.

(2) The sentencing court shall order a presentence report if the defendant is convicted of a felony sexual offense unless:

(a) The defendant, as part of the same prosecution, is convicted of aggravated murder;

(b) The felony sexual offense requires the imposition of a mandatory minimum prison sentence and no departure is sought by the court, district attorney or defendant; or

(c) The felony sexual offense requires imposition of a presumptive prison sentence and no departure is sought by the court, district attorney or defendant.

(3) The Department of Corrections shall:

(a) Require that a presentence report provide an analysis of what disposition is most likely to reduce the offender’s criminal conduct, explain why that disposition would have that effect and provide an assessment of the availability to the offender of any relevant programs or treatment in or out of custody, whether provided by the department or another entity;

(b) Determine what additional information must be included in the presentence report; and

(c) Establish a uniform presentence report form. [1995 c.520 §4 (enacted in lieu of 144.790); 2005 c.473 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 144.790)

This sec­tion and ORS 137.120 (Term of sentence) are mandatory, not discre­tionary, and trial court was re­quired to obtain and consider presen­tence report and state on record reasons for its decisions, notwithstanding waiver of presen­tence report by defendant. State v. Biles, 34 Or App 531, 579 P2d 259 (1978), aff’d 287 Or 63, 597 P2d 808 (1979)

Where revoca­tion of suspended sen­tence occurred sub­se­quent to effective date of this sec­tion, presen­tence report was prerequisite to imposi­tion of sen­tence. State v. Gale, 35 Or App 3, 580 P2d 1036 (1978)

It was error for court, prior to imposing sen­tence upon revoca­tion of proba­tion, to fail to require Correc­tions Division to furnish copy of presen­tence report. State v. Blume, 36 Or App 161, 583 P2d 34 (1978)

Presen­tence report require­ment of this sec­tion was fulfilled where trial judge relied on 3-week old presen­tence report and any new relevant ma­te­ri­al that was before court. State v. Corrick, 38 Or App 247, 589 P2d 1186 (1979)

Where court did no more than order execu­tion of pre­vi­ously imposed suspended sen­tence, it was not imposing sen­tence or acting as “sen­ten­cing court” within meaning of this sec­tion, and require­ment of presen­tence report did not apply. State v. Gustafson, 38 Or App 437, 590 P2d 733 (1979)

Where there was delay between prepara­tion of presen­tence report and sen­ten­cing, but defendant was in custody and no new and relevant ma­te­ri­al was omitted from report because of delay, there was no require­ment under this sec­tion that presen­tence report be updated. State v. Gibson, 38 Or App 593, 590 P2d 797 (1979)

Presen­tence report relating to earlier crime without sen­tence recommenda­tion for sub­se­quent crime was insufficient under this sec­tion to sen­tence for later crime. State v. Wash, 39 Or App 447, 592 P2d 1035 (1979)

Where sen­tence had been vacated and new proba­tion granted, pre-sen­tence report was re­quired before court revoked proba­tion and imposed sen­tence because court was acting as “sen­ten­cing court” within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Hallin, 43 Or App 401, 602 P2d 1134 (1979)

Term “crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­­tion” in Oregon Constitu­tion Article I, sec­tion 11, includes sen­ten­cing and presen­tence interview requires assistance of counsel. State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 647 P2d 904 (1982)

Chapter 144

Notes of Decisions

Under rules of State Board of Parole, board could not in determining history/risk score, consider juvenile adjudica­tions that had been expunged pursuant to [former] ORS 419.800 to 419.839, even if prisoner admits to board that they occurred. West v. Board of Parole, 86 Or App 616, 739 P2d 1096 (1987)

Law Review Cita­tions

53 OLR 32, 67-79 (1973)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 144—Prison Supervision; Work Release; Executive Clemency; Standards for Prison Terms and Parole; Presentence Reports, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors144.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 144, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano144.­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.