|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|State of Oregon v. Jonathan William Rusen|
|Via Video Case 3|
|Timothy A Sylwester on behalf of State of Oregon |
Anne Kimiko Fujita Munsey on behalf of Jonathan William Rusen
Statement of Issues:
|(1) Does a disposition "result from a stipulated sentencing agreement" under ORS 138.105(9), such as to preclude appellate review of a challenge to that disposition, if a sentencing court imposes probationary sentences pursuant to a sentencing agreement between the parties that provides that the court "may" impose consecutive sentences on revocation, and the court later revokes probation and imposes consecutive sentences?|
(2) When a sentencing court revokes multiple probationary sentences based on a finding of a single violation of probation, may the court impose consecutive sentences if the convictions are based on crimes that the defendant committed during separate criminal episodes?
These summaries of cases are prepared for the benefit of members of the media to assist them in reporting the court's activities to the public. Parties and practitioners should not rely on the summaries, or the statement of issues to be decided in the summaries, as indicating the questions that the Supreme Court will consider. Regarding the questions that the Supreme Court may consider, see Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: