Portion of judgment imposing probation conditions not… · Decided 2025-09-24
612 September 24, 2025 No. 838
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
JAKE MICHAEL McGLONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Washington County Circuit Court
23CN05967; A183709
Kelly D. Lemarr, Judge.
Submitted August 22, 2025.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Anna R. Johnson, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
TOOKEY, P. J.
Portion of judgment imposing probation conditions not
announced in open court vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op:
343 Or App 612
(2025) 613
TOOKEY, P. J.
The trial court found defendant in contempt of a
Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) restraining order. The
court imposed a punitive sanction of two years of supervised
probation, ordered no contact with the victim, and imposed
a “drug and alcohol package” of special probation conditions.
In open court, the court announced some of the conditions
of the drug and alcohol package but failed to announce all
of the conditions that the court included in the judgment.
Defendant contends in his first through sixth assignments
of error that his sentence must be reversed and remanded.1
The state concedes error with respect to the first through
sixth assignments of error. We accept the state’s concession
and remand defendant’s judgment.
The trial court’s shorthand reference to the drug
and alcohol package at sentencing was not sufficient to
inform defendant of all the parts of his sentence included in
the judgment, in the absence of an indication in the record
of what is included in the alcohol and drug package. State v.
Priester,
(2023) (court’s shorthand reference to a “package” is
not sufficient to comply with the court’s statutory obligation
to announce conditions in open court where the record does
not reflect what is a part of the package). Thus, the trial
court erred by imposing special probation conditions in the
written judgment that it did not announce at sentencing,
and defendant’s sentence must be reversed.
In his seventh assignment of error, defendant challenges the trial court’s authority to impose any drug and
alcohol conditions, arguing that the circumstances of defendant’s contempt violation were not reasonably related to
alcohol and drug use. See ORS 137.540(2) (court may impose
“any special conditions of probation that are reasonably
related to the crime of conviction”). The state responds that
1
Defendant contends in his first through sixth assignments of error that
the court erred in imposing for the first time in the judgment conditions that
defendant submit to a substance abuse evaluation; that defendant not use or possess controlled substances; that defendant not accept any prescriptions without
notifying the provider of his substance abuse history; that defendant not possess
drug paraphernalia; that defendant not frequent places where drugs are bought
or sold; and that defendant install an ignition interlock device on his car.
614 State v. McGlone
defendant did not preserve his objections to the imposition of
the conditions on that ground. We agree with the state that
the issue is unpreserved and therefore decline to address
the seventh assignment. However, defendant will have an
opportunity at resentencing to raise the issue.
Portion of judgment imposing probation conditions
not announced in open court vacated and remanded for
resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
