2007 ORS 137.123¹
Provisions relating to concurrent and consecutive sentences

(1) A sentence imposed by the court may be made concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence which has been previously imposed or is simultaneously imposed upon the same defendant. The court may provide for consecutive sentences only in accordance with the provisions of this section. A sentence shall be deemed to be a concurrent term unless the judgment expressly provides for consecutive sentences.

(2) If a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for criminal offenses that do not arise from the same continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, or if the defendant previously was sentenced by any other court within the United States to a sentence which the defendant has not yet completed, the court may impose a sentence concurrent with or consecutive to the other sentence or sentences.

(3) When a defendant is sentenced for a crime committed while the defendant was incarcerated after sentencing for the commission of a previous crime, the court shall provide that the sentence for the new crime be consecutive to the sentence for the previous crime.

(4) When a defendant has been found guilty of more than one criminal offense arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, the sentences imposed for each resulting conviction shall be concurrent unless the court complies with the procedures set forth in subsection (5) of this section.

(5) The court has discretion to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for separate convictions arising out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct only if the court finds:

(a) That the criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated was not merely an incidental violation of a separate statutory provision in the course of the commission of a more serious crime but rather was an indication of defendant’s willingness to commit more than one criminal offense; or

(b) The criminal offense for which a consecutive sentence is contemplated caused or created a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim or caused or created a risk of causing loss, injury or harm to a different victim than was caused or threatened by the other offense or offenses committed during a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct. [1987 c.2 §12; 1991 c.67 §29; 1991 c.111 §14; 1995 c.657 §2; 2003 c.14 §58]

Notes of Decisions

Where escape sen­tence was to run consecutively to sub­se­quently imposed burglary sen­tence, trial court erred in sen­ten­cing sequence and technical flaw can be corrected by reversing order of sen­tences. State of Oregon v. Benedict, 95 Or App 750, 770 P2d 973 (1989)

Trial court was not authorized to order sen­tence served consecutively to proba­tion imposed in an­oth­er case by an­oth­er judge because proba­tion is not "sen­tence." State v. Gaither, 97 Or App 576, 776 P2d 595 (1989)

Under this sec­tion, which expressly authorizes simultaneous imposi­tion of consecutive sen­tences, trial court did not err in imposing two consecutive six-month suspended jail sen­tences on defendant. State ex rel Millard v. Wagy, 99 Or App 274, 782 P2d 949 (1989)

Trial court is re­quired to make findings pursuant to this sec­tion when court imposes consecutive sen­tences. State v. Racicot, 106 Or App 557, 809 P2d 726 (1991)

It was not impossible or illogical for trial court to impose sen­tences for con­vic­­tions of burglary, menacing and carrying dangerous weapon consecutively to death sen­tence. State v. Rose, 107 Or App 85, 810 P2d 1321 (1991)

This sec­tion impliedly repealed ORS 137.122. State v. Duran, 108 Or App 282, 814 P2d 182 (1991)

Limits on court's discre­tion to impose consecutive terms of im­pris­on­­ment under this sec­tion do not apply where con­vic­­tions did not arise out of continuous and uninterrupted course of con­duct. State v. Duran, 108 Or App 282, 814 P2d 182 (1991)

Where consecutive sen­tences are imposed and one sen­tence involves incarcera­tion, proba­tionary term of non-incarcera­tion sen­tence merges with post-prison supervision period of incarcera­tion sen­tence. State v. Dummitt, 115 Or App 487, 839 P2d 246 (1992); State v. Brown, 119 Or App 162, 849 P2d 547 (1993), as modified by 126 Or App 631, 869 P2d 904 (1994)

Court did not err in imposing consecutive sen­tences without making findings re­quired by this sec­tion because defendant's pos­ses­sion of three weapons was not continuous and uninterrupted course of con­duct. State v. Padilla, 118 Or App 122, 846 P2d 437 (1993)

Nothing in sen­ten­cing guide­line rules precludes disposi­tional departure sen­tences from being imposed consecutively. State v. Morales-Aguilar, 121 Or App 456, 855 P2d 646 (1993)

Court has power to prohibit counsel from informing jury of possibility that consecutive sen­tences will be imposed. State v. Williams, 322 Or 620, 912 P2d 364 (1996)

Disposi­tion that child is within jurisdic­tion of juvenile court following juvenile adjudica­tion is not "sen­tence" for purposes of imposing consecutive sen­tences. State v. Trice, 146 Or App 15, 933 P2d 345 (1997)

Court may impose sen­tence that is partially concurrent and partially consecutive to other sen­tence. State v. Trice, 159 Or App 1, 976 P2d 569 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

Court that sen­tences defendant is not bound by indict­ment allega­tion that of­fenses were part of same act or transac­tion. State v. Bush, 174 Or App 280, 25 P3d 368 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Where original crim­i­nal objective continues to be present, continuous and uninterrupted course of con­duct may include closely related events that manifest addi­tional crim­i­nal objectives. State v. Kautz, 179 Or App 458, 39 P3d 937 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant knowingly admits facts that would support imposi­tion of consecutive sen­tences, court may rely on admission for sen­ten­cing purposes even if admission was made for different purpose. State v. Herrera-Lopez, 204 Or App 188, 129 P3d 238 (2006), Sup Ct review denied

Judicial determina­tion whether of­fense indicates defendant's willingness to commit more than one crime does not violate defendant's constitu­tional right to have sen­tence enhancing facts determined by jury. State v. Tanner, 210 Or App 70, 150 P3d 31 (2006)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 137—Judgment and Execution; Parole and Probation by the Court, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­137.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 137, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­137ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
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.