State v. Vanhorn

                                    224

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.
               JASON ALEXANDER VANHORN,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                Washington County Circuit Court
                     19CR18347; A171958
                                

   Theodore E. Sims, 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.
Cite as 

 (2021)                            225

        PER CURIAM
         Defendant was convicted in a bench trial of harassment, ORS 166.065, and second-degree criminal mischief,
ORS 164.354. On appeal, he argues that the state adduced
insufficient proof of his intent to commit harassment. We
reject that argument without written discussion. He also
argues that the court erred in including in the written judgment a special condition of probation that he “[s]ubmit to
search of person, residence, vehicle and property including consent to search computer and telephonic devices.”
A general condition of probation requires a probationer to
consent to searches “if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a violation will be
found.” ORS 137.540(1)(i). 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 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. Nelson, 

, 

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