State v. Stark

No. 853              October 1, 2025                 705

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
             WILLIAM HARLAN STARK,
                 Defendant-Appellant.
            Clackamas County Circuit Court
                 23CR23890; A184199

  Heather Karabeika, Judge.
  Submitted August 8, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Division, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Robert A. Koch, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Reversed and remanded
706                                                                 State v. Stark

            LAGESEN, C. J.
          Defendant appeals a judgment revoking his probation and sentencing him to 45 days in jail. He contends that
the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that defendant
violated the general condition of probation that he “report
as required and abide by the direction of the supervising
officer,” ORS 137.540(1)(k), and that, as a result, the trial
court erred in revoking his probation based on its finding
that defendant had violated that condition. At the contested hearing, two probation department employees, neither of whom was defendant’s supervising officer, testified
that they met with defendant to discuss his progress in a
transitional housing program and administer a drug test.
They each instructed him to remain at the probation office
after meeting with them. Defendant left the office and did
not return that day. Defendant’s supervising officer testified
that she did not tell him to come to the office that day. The
state concedes that the evidence was legally insufficient for
the trial court to find that defendant failed to report and
abide by the direction of his supervising officer. We agree
and accept the state’s concession.1
            Reversed and remanded.




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