State v. Jarvis

500                  March 5, 2025               No. 195

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
              BRANDON LLOYD JARVIS,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
               Coos County Circuit Court
                 20CR27645; A181608

  Andrew E. Combs, Judge.
  Submitted January 21, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Hellman, Judge, and
Mooney, Senior Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                              501

          HELLMAN, J.
         Defendant appeals a judgment that revoked his
probation. In a single assignment of error, he argues that
the trial court erred because the pre-sentence investigation
report (PSI) did not satisfy ORS 144.791(3).1 We affirm.
        On appeal, defendant specifically argues that the
PSI failed to comply with ORS 144.791(3) because it did
not “analyze what disposition was most likely to reduce
defendant’s criminal conduct, explain why that disposition
would likely reduce defendant’s criminal conduct, or assess
the availability of any relevant programs or treatment.”
The state responds that defendant did not preserve those
arguments, that ORS 144.791(3) applies to the Department
of Corrections—not to trial courts—and that any error is
harmless. We need not decide whether defendant preserved
those arguments or whether the trial court erred because
we conclude that any error is harmless.
         “If error is harmless, this court is required to affirm
a defendant’s conviction even when a trial court commits
error; and error is harmless if there is little likelihood that
the error affected the verdict or substantially affected the
defendant’s rights.” State v. Garcia, 

,

, rev den, 

 (2017); see also State v.
Davis, 

, 

 (2003) (“Oregon’s constitutional test for affirmance despite error consists of a single
inquiry: Is there little likelihood that the particular error
affected the verdict?”).
         Here, any error is harmless because the “particular issue” that defendant identifies on appeal—the deficits of the PSI—”[have] no relationship to [the factfinder’s]

   1
     ORS 144.791(3) provides:
       “The Department of Corrections shall:
       “(a) Require that a presentence report provide an analysis of what disposition is most likely to reduce the offender’s criminal conduct, explain why
   that disposition would have that effect and provide an assessment of the
   availability to the offender of any relevant programs or treatment in or out of
   custody, whether provided by the department or another entity;
       “(b) Determine what additional information must be included in the pre-sentence report; and
       “(c) Establish a uniform presentence report form.”
502                                              State v. Jarvis

determination.” Davis, 

. As relevant here, defendant pleaded guilty to four felony sexual offenses in 2020. In
2023, the state alleged that defendant had violated several
general and special conditions of his probation. Defendant
admitted that he had repeatedly failed to report as a sex
offender, that he had failed to complete sex offender treatment or submit to polygraph exams, that he had used methamphetamine, and that he had possessed a weapon. The
trial court then continued the hearing and ordered a PSI.
        At the continued hearing, the trial court received
the PSI into evidence, heard argument from both parties,
then addressed defendant.
      “[THE COURT]: [Defendant]. And so, here’s what I’m
   struggling with. And so, probation’s been going on by my
   calculationssince October of 2020. By my rudimentary
   math, that’s about two and half years. And there’s been
   these rather significant, I’ll say deficits. This issue with
   not completing treatment and not registering. … Why—
   why should I think that after two and a half years of noncompliance that this is going to be the time in which you’re
   going to start complying and there will be no more violations? Why should I believe that?”
After a colloquy with defendant concerning his failure to
complete treatment, the court observed:
   “We did the downward departure with the idea that [defendant] would do what he’s supposed to under supervised probation. He’s actually received, from my perspective, more
   chances than the average person receives on a downward
   departure. Especially after the conviction of a crime.”
As a consequence, the trial court found that the purposes
of probation were not being met and revoked defendant’s
probation.
          In light of the foregoing, we conclude that there
is little likelihood that a PSI containing the information
that defendant identifies on appeal would have affected the
trial court’s determination to revoke defendant’s probation.
See Davis, 

 (“The correct focus of the inquiry
regarding affirmance despite error is on the possible influence of the error on the verdict rendered, not whether this
court, sitting as a factfinder, would regard the evidence of
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)          503

guilt as substantial and compelling.”). Therefore, any error
is harmless.
        Affirmed.