338 ORAPP 244 - State v. Burns

244                February 26, 2025              No. 154

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                STATE OF OREGON

               STATE OF OREGON,
                Plaintiff-Respondent,
                          v.
           GREGORY THOMAS BURNS,
                Defendant-Appellant.
         Washington County Circuit Court
  22CR28541, 22CR29930; A183030 (Control), A183033

  Andrew Erwin, Judge.
  Submitted January 10, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, Oregon
Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  EGAN, J.
  Remanded for resentencing in Case No. 22CR28541 and
Case No. 22CR29930; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op:

338 Or App 244

 (2025)                           245

           EGAN, J.
        In this consolidated appeal, defendant challenges
two judgments revoking probation. Defendant argues that
the trial court erred by cutting short his allocution. We
agree. We remand for resentencing and otherwise affirm.1
         A defendant has a constitutional right to speak
before sentencing. DeAngelo v. Schiedler,

306 Or 91, 93-96

757 P2d 1355

 (1988). Nevertheless, a trial court may prevent
a defendant from making irrelevant statements, or ones
that are unduly repetitive or unnecessarily detailed. State v.
Ball,

362 Or 807, 817

416 P3d 301

 (2018). A trial court may
also silence a defendant who uses verbally abusive language
toward the court. State v. Ross,

331 Or App 570, 573

546 P3d 960

 (2024).
         Here, at a probation violation hearing in two cases,
the trial court initially allowed defendant to speak, but
the court interrupted him when he quoted a vulgar email.
Defendant indicated that he would move on to another
topic, but the trial court did not allow defendant to continue.
Under those circumstances, the state concedes that the trial
court violated defendant’s right of allocution. We agree with
and accept the state’s concession. The appropriate remedy is
to remand for resentencing. Ball,

362 Or at 823

.
       Remanded for resentencing in Case No. 22CR28541
and Case No. 22CR29930; otherwise affirmed.




   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.