- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
- Date Filed: 12-21-2011
- Case #: A142644
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.;& Wollheim, J.
- Full Text Opinion
The Court of Appeals wrote to clarify its withdrawal from reconsideration of State v. McLaughlin. In McLaughlin, the defendant asked the Court to withhold remand for resentencing from the trial court because it no longer had jurisdiction to impose restitution. The Court of Appeals granted defendant’s motion, in part, because the state failed to file a timely objection. Later, the state filed its objection with the Court, explaining its tardiness on the grounds that it did not receive electronic notice of the Court’s petition for filing. The Court of Appeals accepted the state’s motion, and heard its arguments that, unlike previous cases, the trial court could impose a compensatory fine on the defendant to be paid to the victim. The Court held that under ORS 138.222(5)(a), an appellate court shall remand a case for resentencing when the trial court committed an error that required resentencing, including awards of restitution or compensatory fines. In this case, the trial court erred in its ability to award restitution at the time of sentencing, but could award compensatory fines. Remanded for resentencing