Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN ARTHUR MAST, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-10-30
Citations: 109 Or. App. 485
Docket Number: C890525CR; CA A62368
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN ARTHUR MAST, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 109
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted February 22,
reversed and remanded for reconsideration October 30, 1991
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN ARTHUR MAST, Appellant.
(C890525CR; CA A62368)
819 P2d 1392
Theresa M. Welch, Wilsonville, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief was M. Janise Augur, Tigard.
Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Joseph, C. J., vice Newman, J., deceased.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was convicted of driving while suspended, a class C felony, and was placed on five years probation. Subsequently, his probation was revoked. There were three alleged violations: (1) he failed to abide by certain directions of his probation officer; (2) he changed his residence without permission; and (3) he consumed alcoholic liquor. The court discussed all three allegations as bases for revoking defendant's probation. Defendant appeals.
The state points out that abstaining from alcohol was not a condition of defendant's probation, and it concedes that revoking the probation on that ground would have been a mistake. Because it is unclear whether the consumption of alcohol was a basis for revoking the probation, we remand for reconsideration.
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.