State v. White

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Appellate Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-06-2013
  • Case #: A144392
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Haselton, C.J..; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A defendant's appeal of supplemental judgment is timely when the 30-day appeal period under ORS 138.071(4) does not start running until actual notice of the supplemental judgment being entered has been received by the defendant or his counsel.

Defendant was convicted of fourth degree assault and harassment. On appeal Defendant claimed that the trial court erred when entering a supplemental judgment imposing restitution in the amount of $1,337.27. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed Defendant's appeal as untimely because the 30-day time period after supplemental judgment had been entered passed, thus the Court did not have jurisdiction. The Oregon Supreme Court subsequently decided State v. Mullins, after which the Supreme Court vacated the prior dismissal of Defendant's appeal and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Mullins. On reconsideration and in light of Mullins, which created an exception to the rule in ORS 138.071(4) that appeals must be filed within 30 days when the defendant or his counsel has not received notice of the supplemental judgment, the Court held that the case was timely. Additionally, the Court held that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court erred in imposing restitution against the Defendant because there was an absence of any evidence in the record to support such an award. Remanded for sentencing, otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search