State v. Cunningham

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly relied on a probation officer-imposed curfew violation as a basis for revoking the defendant's probation. Because the record did not establish that the trial court would have revoked probation based solely on the defendant's failure to report, the court could not determine that the error was harmless. The revocation judgment was vacated and remanded for the trial court to reconsider its discretionary decision.

Holdings

1. A probationer's failure to comply with a probation officer's curfew or other directive unrelated to the obligation to report as required does not violate the general probation condition requiring the probationer to report as required and abide by the supervising officer's direction.
2. The error was not shown to be harmless because the record did not establish that there was little likelihood that the erroneous curfew finding affected the trial court's discretionary decision to revoke probation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly treated defendant's failure to comply with a probation officer's curfew directive as a violation of the general probation condition requiring him to report as required and abide by the supervising officer's direction.
2. Whether the trial court's erroneous curfew-violation finding was nonprejudicial because the court also found that defendant failed to report to his probation officer.

Disposition

vacated