STATE v. VANHORN (2021)

Defendant was convicted in a bench trial of harassment, ORS 166.065, and second-degree criminal mischief, ORS 164.354. On appeal, he argues that the state adduced insufficient proof of his intent to commit harassment. We reject that argument without written discussion. He also argues that the court erred in including in the written judgment a special condition of probation that he “[s]ubmit to search of person, residence, vehicle and property including consent to search computer and telephonic devices.” A general condition of probation requires a probationer to consent to searches “if the supervising officer has reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a violation will be found.” ORS 137.540(1)(i). As this court concluded in State v. Bowden, 292 Or. App. 815, 818, 425 P.3d 475 (2018), a court may not impose a special condition of probation that “overrides a general condition and for which the limitations of a general condition need not be followed.” (Emphasis in original.) The state concedes that this probation condition was impermissible. We agree and accept the state's concession. We note that we reached the same conclusion, with respect to a similar Washington County condition of probation, in State v. Nelson, 310 Or. App. 219, 483 P.3d 1261 (2021).

Portion of judgment imposing special condition of probation reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

PER CURIAM