State v. Nelson

                                    219

Submitted March 4; portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation
   reversed, remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed March 24, 2021


                     STATE OF OREGON,
                      Plaintiff-Respondent,
                                v.
                VALERIE BLANCHE NELSON,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                Washington County Circuit Court
                     18CR43974; A171572
                                

   Beth L. Roberts, Judge.
   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
   Portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.
220                                           State v. Nelson

        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, 

, 

 (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, 

, 

(2021).
        Portion of judgment imposing special condition of
probation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise
affirmed.