Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THEARL EUGENE DUMMITT, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-10-14
Citations: 115 Or. App. 487
Docket Number: 10-88-07436, 10-90-08756; CA A69796 (Control), A69797
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THEARL EUGENE DUMMITT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 115
Pages: 487–493

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 29,
remanded for resentencing in case number CA A69797; otherwise affirmed October 14, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. THEARL EUGENE DUMMITT, Appellant.
(10-88-07436, 10-90-08756; CA A69796 (Control), A69797)
(Cases Consolidated)
839 P2d 246
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
Harrison Latto, 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 Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
WARREN, P. J.
Edmonds, J., concurring in part; dissenting in part.

Opinion:
WARREN, P. J.
Defendant challenges the sentences imposed after he was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, ORS 163.118, and being an ex-convict in possession of a firearm. ORS 166.270. The court imposed consecutive sentences of a 90-month prison term on the manslaughter conviction with 36-month post-prison supervision and a 36-month probationary sentence with 90 days in jail on the possession conviction. Defendant argues that, under OAR 253-12-020, the probation term of his possession conviction "merges" with the post-prison term of supervision on his manslaughter conviction and that, therefore, the 36-month probation term and the terms of probation imposed by the court are void.
As pertinent, OAR 253-12-020 provides:
"(1) When the sentencing judge imposes multiple sentences [to be served] consecutively, the consecutive sentences shall consist of an incarceration term and a supervision term.
<C
i((2)
u
"(d) If any sentence includes a prison term, the entire incarceration term of the consecutive sentences shall be served in prison.
"(3) The supervision term of the consecutive sentences shall be:
"(a) The presumptive post-prison supervision term imposed for the primary offense if the sentence for any offense includes a prison term; or
"(b) The presumptive probation term of each offense if no sentence includes a prison term. All presumptive probation terms imposed as provided by this subsection shall run concurrently."
The state argues that we need not address defendant's arguments, because the judgment states only that the term of incarceration is consecutive. Therefore, it contends, the term of probation will be deemed to be concurrent, ORS 137.123(1), and will have run before the post-prison term begins. Under the guidelines, a probationary sentence is a single sentence, which may contain custody units in the terms of probation. OAR 253-05-007(1). The guidelines do not provide that part of a probationary sentence may be served consecutively and part concurrently. They also do not address when the term of probation begins if it is imposed consecutively to a prison term under OAR 253-12-020.
However, whether the term of probation is deemed concurrent or whether it begins after the term of incarceration, the result is the same: There is no separate probation term. When consecutive sentences are imposed, they are structured as one unit consisting "of an incarceration term and a supervision term." OAR 253-12-020(1). (Emphasis supplied.) That single incarceration term results in the jail term being served in prison. OAR 253-12-020(2)(d). Although not explicitly stated, the single supervision term results in the probation term becoming part of the post-prison supervision term. OAR 253-12-020(3)(a).
The state does not dispute that both supervisory terms in this case are to be served concurrently. It argues, however, that no rule precludes supervision by both the sentencing court and the Board. However, offenders released from prison are supervised by the Department of Corrections or the corrections agency designated by the Department. OAR 253-11-001. Conditions of post-prison supervision are prepared by the Department, subject to approval by the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision. OAR 253-11-001. Sanctions for violation of post-prison supervision are also under the authority of the Department or the Board. OAR 253-11-004. Under the rules, the term of the probationary sentence is subsumed in the post-prison supervision term.
Although the sentencing court here imposed both a prison term and conditions of probation, that does not render the judgment void, as defendant argues. OAR 253-12-020(3) (a) mandates a single term of supervision for consecutive sentences. The effect is to make surplusage the supervision terms and conditions in all judgments other than the judgment on the primary offense. See State v. Enos, 114 Or App 208, 836 P2d 1347 (1992); State v. Markham, 114 Or App 5, 836 P2d 1348 (1992).
The judgment requires that defendant serve 90 days in jail. The state concedes that that was error. OAR 253-12-020(2)(d). We remand for resentencing so that the 90 days incarceration on the possession conviction will be served in prison. State v. Miller, 114 Or Ápp 235, 238 n 3, 835 P2d 131 (1992).
Remanded for resentencing in case number CA A69797; otherwise affirmed.
Although defendant appealed the judgment in an unrelated case and his motion to consolidate the appeals was granted, he raises no issue with respect to the judgment in CA A69796.
By contrast, OAR 253-12-030(2)(a) provides that a probationary sentence that is to be served consecutively to a previously imposed sentence "shall begin at the date of sentencing."
A supervision term is described as post-prison supervision and shall be imposed as part of the sentence for any offender who is sentenced to prison. OAR 253-05-002(1).
The state and the dissent contend that reading OAR 253-12-020(3)(a) as applying to more than the duration of the term of post-prison supervision restricts the authority that the sentencing court ordinarily would have. That argument must be addressed to the legislature.