Opinion
A171572
03-24-2021
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Valerie Blanche NELSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.
PER CURIAM Defendant appeals her convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010, unlawful possession of hydrocodone, ORS 475.814, reckless driving, ORS 811.140, and two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver, ORS 811.700. She raises issues concerning exclusion of evidence and imposition of fines that we reject without written discussion. She also argues that the trial court erred in including in the written judgment a special condition of probation that she "submit to search[es] of person, residence, vehicle and property by the supervising officer." ORS 137.540(1)(i) provides a general condition of probation that requires a probationer to consent to such searches "if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a violation will be found." As this court concluded in State v. Bowden , 292 Or. App. 815, 818, 425 P.3d 475 (2018), a court may not impose a special condition of probation that "overrides a general condition and for which the limitations of a general condition need not be followed." (Emphasis in original.) The condition imposed here would effectively override the general condition set forth in ORS 137.540(1)(i). The state concedes that this probation condition was impermissible. We agree and accept the state's concession. We note that we reached the same conclusion, with respect to a similar Washington County condition of probation, in State v. Vanhorn , 310 Or. App. 224, 483 P.3d 1257 (2021).
Portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.