State v. Dubois - Affirmation of Probation Revocation

Oregon Court of Appeals

Filed March 18th, 2026

Detected March 24th, 2026

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to revoke Anna Louise Dubois' probation and impose a prison sentence. The defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion by not explaining how her admissions contributed to the revocation decision.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Oregon Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Anna Louise Dubois' probation and sentence her to 24 months in prison. The defendant's sole argument on appeal was that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to articulate how her admissions specifically led to the probation revocation. The appellate court reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion, referencing relevant Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure and statutes governing probation revocation.

The state contended that the defendant's argument was unpreserved because she did not raise it at the revocation hearing. The court ultimately affirmed the decision, finding no error. This ruling reinforces the standard of review for probation revocation decisions and the importance of preserving arguments at the trial court level. Regulated entities involved in probation or parole proceedings should ensure all arguments are properly raised and documented during hearings to avoid waiver on appeal.

What to do next

Review trial court records for any arguments made regarding probation revocation discretion.
Ensure all arguments related to judicial discretion are explicitly stated and addressed during revocation hearings.

Penalties

24 months in prison and 24 months of post-prison supervision

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Dubois

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Citations: 347 Or. App. 901
Docket Number: A185605
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Disposition: Affirmed.
Opinion
Authorities (2)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Disposition

Affirmed.

Combined Opinion

No. 223 March 18, 2026 901

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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.
ANNA LOUISE DUBOIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Coos County Circuit Court
22CR61740; A185605

Martin E. Stone, Judge.
Submitted February 5, 2026.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Carla E. Edmondson, Deputy Public Defender,
Oregon Public Defense Commission, filed the brief for
appellant.
Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Interim Deputy Attorney General, and Greg Rios, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and
Jacquot, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
902 State v. Dubois

PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment revoking probation
and imposing a sentence of 24 months in prison and 24
months of post-prison supervision. In a single assignment of
error, defendant argues that the trial court abused its dis-
cretion in revoking her probation because it “did not explain
how defendant’s admissions contributed to its decision to
revoke her probation.” The state responds that, at the revo-
cation hearing, defendant did not raise the argument she
now raises on appeal, and thus it is unpreserved. The state
further argues that, nonetheless, the trial court did not err.
For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
We review the ultimate decision to revoke probation
for abuse of discretion. State v. Hamilton, 321 Or App 803,
813, 518 P3d 618 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 740 (2023); OAR
213-010-0001. A trial court has discretionary authority to
revoke probation upon “the finding of a new crime or other
violation of the conditions of probation.” State v. Kelemen,
296 Or App 184, 192, 437 P3d 1225 (2019); see also ORS
137.540(7) (“Failure to abide by all general and special con-
ditions of probation may result in * * * revocation of proba-
tion * * *.”).
Defendant was placed on probation following a
guilty plea. Rather than a prison sentence, the sentenc-
ing court imposed a downward dispositional departure to
36 months of formal probation and jail time. At a probation
revocation hearing, defendant admitted to five probation
violations: (1) “providing a [urine] sample testing positive
for meth, and * * * admitting to the use of meth,” (2) “fail-
ing to comply with treatment recommendations,” (3) “failing
to report for scheduled [urinalysis] testing,” (4) “failing to
report a change of address to [her] supervisory officer,” and
(5) “failing to report to the probation office as directed.” The
trial court found that defendant’s admissions were knowing
and voluntary, and that defendant violated her probation
based on those admissions. The trial court revoked defen-
dant’s probation on those bases. The court noted that when
defendant previously violated her probation, a sanction was
imposed, but she was given the opportunity to continue
probation. After defendant was provided with that second
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 347 Or App 901 (2026) 903

opportunity, the court found that she had made some pos-
itive progress, but she failed to comply with several of her
probation conditions.
Assuming without deciding that defendant pre-
served her claim of error, we conclude that the trial court
did not err by revoking defendant’s probation based on
defendant’s admissions. The trial court provided a suffi-
cient explanation for its exercise of discretion by noting
defendant’s previous probation violations, the opportunities
she was given to comply, and the number of violations she
admitted to. The trial court’s ruling was consistent with its
finding that defendant failed to abide by the conditions of
her probation, and thus the trial court did not err by revok-
ing her probation.
Affirmed.