State v. Logston

Summary

The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court, holding that the trial court had authority under Article I, section 44(1)(b) of the Oregon Constitution to impose a consecutive incarceration term as a probation‑revocation sanction because the constitutional provision supersedes the sentencing guidelines. The Court resolved the dispute on constitutional grounds, relying on State v. Lane, and declined to address the statutory question presented.