State v. Beckham

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Remedies
  • Date Filed: 12-05-2012
  • Case #: A145541
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J.; and Duncan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

For the trial court to impose restitution after the 90 day window provided by ORS 137.106(1)(b), it must be shown that good cause existed for extending the time period.

Defendant was convicted of fourth-degree assault constituting domestic violence on April 2, 2010. A restitution hearing was scheduled for July 1, 2010. No restitution hearing was ever held and on July 27, 2010, the trial court entered a supplemental judgment imposing restitution in the amount of $358.95. The Defendant appealed the supplemental judgment for restitution, arguing that ORS 137.106(1)(b) required that such judgements must be entered within 90 days of the conviction, that there was no good cause for extending that time period, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the amount imposed. The State conceded that the restitution judgment was made in error by the court, but sought remand to determine if there was good cause for extending the 90 days. The Court of Appeals held that the case must be vacated and remanded to determine if the trial court had power to impose the restitution without including that requirement in the original judgment, if there was good cause to extend the 90 days provided by ORS 137.106(1)(b), and if good cause existed, whether it was the proper amount of restitution. The Court reasoned, that because no hearing was held by the trial court, determination of good cause for imposing the supplemental judgment after the 90 day window had not yet been decided. Vacated and remanded.

Advanced Search