Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LORA LEE HILL, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-03-25
Citations: 112 Or. App. 213
Docket Number: C90-07-34013; CA A67950
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LORA LEE HILL, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 112
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs July 11,1991,
affirmed March 25, 1992
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. LORA LEE HILL, Appellant.
(C90-07-34013; CA A67950)
827 P2d 951
Richard A. Weill, Corbett, filed the brief for appellant.
Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Joseph, Chief Judge, and Deits, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was sentenced on her conviction for theft in the first degree, ORS 164.055, to six months in jail and was required to complete a mandatory drug program. That is a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines. OAR 253-04-001. She argues that there are not substantial and compelling reasons for the departure.
Defendant's specific argument is that the court used her previous convictions to justify the departure and that those convictions were already accounted for in her criminal history score. She is wrong. The court's findings were that defendant had committed crimes during successive probationary periods and that she would not be deterred from criminal activity by being placed on probation, which is the presumptive sentence under the guidelines. The findings demonstrate substantial and compelling reasons for the departure. State v. Wilson, 111 Or App 147, 826 P2d 1010 (1992).
Affirmed.