State v. Hanson

No. 1004           November 19, 2025               141

  This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
            ZACHARY AUGUSTINE HANSON,
               aka Zachary Dustin Hanson,
                   Defendant-Appellant.
              Douglas County Circuit Court
                  23CR57964; A184567

  Robert B. Johnson, Judge.
  Submitted October 14, 2025.
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
   Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Megan Mizuta, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
   Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
142                                          State v. Hanson

        PER CURIAM
        Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking
his probation. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, State v.
Kelemen, 

, 

 (2019), we
affirm.
         Defendant does not dispute that he violated his probation by consuming alcohol and crashing his parents’ car
while intoxicated, as well as failing to appear for a court
date. He argues, however, that his actions did not undermine the purposes of probation justifying revocation because
he demonstrated sincere readiness to address his addiction,
his relapse was part of his recovery process, and he had significant time left on his probation to allow him to complete
treatment programs.
          Defendant violated his probation and, on this record,
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.