State v. Eiler

148                   June 4, 2025              No. 510

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
                 NOAH NELSON EILER,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
                Lane County Circuit Court
      20CR13832, 20CR61871, 21CR30195, 21CR37992;
       A183210 (Control), A183211, A183212, A183213

  Bradley A. Cascagnette, Judge.
  Submitted May 15, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Julia Glick, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
  KAMINS, J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)            149

        KAMINS, J.
         Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his
probation. In a single assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court acted arbitrarily and capriciously
in revoking his probation because his conduct did not undermine the probation’s purposes. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, State v. Kelemen, 

, 

 (2019), we affirm.
         Defendant does not dispute that he violated his probation; rather, he argues that he had “largely complied” with
probation requirements and had only been sanctioned once
before incurring the current violation. The state responds
that defendant engaged in a “pattern of noncompliance”: he
frequently failed to report and attend appointments, had
never attended work crew sanctions, and had absconded
for supervision for six months, triggering the issuance of a
warrant for his arrest. The state also argues that a single
violation is a sufficient basis to revoke probation.
         We agree with the state on this record; defendant
violated his probation, and the trial court acted within its
discretion in revoking it. See OAR 213-010-0001 (“The decision to revoke probation is discretionary and may be exercised upon a finding that the offender has violated one or
more of the conditions of probation, or that the offender has
participated in new criminal activity.”); Kelemen, 

 (“[T]he plain terms of [OAR 213-010-0001] make
a trial court’s exercise of its revocation authority contingent
on a finding of either a violation or a new crime.”).
        Affirmed.